Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — ENVIRONMENT

Partnership Committees and Programme Authorities

Mr. Steen: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment how much Government money has been made available to the six partnership committees and 15 programme authorities for each of the last two years.

The Minister for Local Government and Environmental Services (Mr. Tom King): The total resources available under the urban programme for the relevant authorities were some £133 million in 1980–81 and some £146 million in 1981–82. I will, with permission, circulate the figures for individual partnerships and programme authorities in the Official Report. Allocations for 1982–83 will total £179 million.

Mr. Steen: I recognise the value of these considerable sums of public money in rebuilding the principal urban areas. Is my right hon. Friend aware that Liverpool city council is planning to pull down Clayton Square in the inner neighbourhood, which has 30 shops, banks and even a Catholic shrine? Will he tell the leader of the Liberal city council that, if the council continues to have buildings demolished, the Government will stop the grant of public money?

Mr. King: My hon. Friend will understand that I cannot comment on the details of what he has described. On the general policy of seeking, where possible, to avoid demolition and encourage renovation, there has been considerable progress. All who are working in inner city areas are well aware of the need to conserve the best and renovate wherever possible.

Mr. Joseph Dean: Is the Minister aware that the part of his answer dealing with the 15 programme authorities relates to the majority of authorities which, as I understand it, received substantially increased allocations in real terms? However, the city of Leeds has had its allocation reduced by 6 per cent. in real terms. Will he explain why the city of Leeds has been discriminated against? Is he prepared to meet a delegation of Members of Parliament representing that city and members of the city council to explain and discuss this matter?

Mr. King: I cannot do that without notice. There are 15 programme authorities. I must be sure of the reasons

for the decision in this case by my noble Friend the Undersecretary of State for the Environment. Ministers are always willing to receive deputations from Members of Parliament if they wish to raise matters. However, I shall write to the hon. Gentleman when I have made inquiries.

Mr. Alton: Will the Minister bear in mind that, before any decision could be taken by the Liberal-controlled Liverpool city council in the partnership area, it would require the support of either the Conservative or Labour Party on that council? Therefore, to hold one man responsible is absurd. Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that it would be far more beneficial to the partnership area if the £500, 000 being cut from the Merseyside police budget were to be restored this year rather than frittered away on things such as gardening centres in Toxteth?

Mr. King: The hon. Gentleman's first point, of course, is correct. I take note of the second point, but it goes rather wider than the original question.

Mr. Marlow: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, despite the vast amount of Government money spent on inner city areas, there will not be a solution to inner city problems until we have sorted out the problems of crime, particularly violent crime? While we are considering spending more money, will he also get on to the Police Federation, which is campaigning for the reintroduction of capital punishment, so that we may have more effective means of sorting out the problems in inner city areas?

Mr. King: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is involved in that matter. I admire my hon. Friend's ingenuity, but that is not a question directly for me to answer.

Following is the information:


Urban Programme Allocations


£ million cash



1980–81
Total Allocations
1981–82*
Original Allocations


Partnerships


Birmingham
17·30
16·93


Hackney/Islington
15·35
15·00


Lambeth
9·03
9·17


Liverpool
17·61
17·61


Newcastle/Gateshead
12·91
13·95


Manchester/Salford
17·48
16·78


Programme Authorities


Bolton
2·11
2·56


Bradford
3·33
3·12


Hammersmith and Fulham
3·33
4·27


Hull
2·62
3·40


Leeds
3·56
3·75


Leicester
3·83
416


Middlesbrough
2·71
3·43


Nottingham
3·41
3·75


Oldham
2·43
2·85


Sheffield
3·44
3·49


Sunderland
2·60
2·68


South Tyneside
2·51
2·99


North Tyneside
2·25
2·34


Wirral
2·67
2·79


Wolverhampton
2·93
3·22


* In addition there is £8 million available for further allocations to those authorities that can justify them.

MINIS System

Mr. Eggar: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what have been the advantages to his Department of the introduction of the MINIS system.

The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Michael Heseltine): MINIS enables Ministers and senior officials, among other things, to conduct a regular and systematic review of all aspects of departmental policy, to understand what services cost, to monitor closely the manpower implications of policy decisions and to examine the structure of the management of the Department on a regular basis.

Mr. Eggar: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that his is the only Department in Whitehall that has installed such an effective and useful system? It is to his great credit that he has introduced such a system. When does he expect other Departments to learn the lessons that he has taught his Department?

Mr. Heseltine: I am sure that my hon. Friend will wish to discuss those matters with Ministers responsible for other Departments, not with me. It is true that, coincidental with the introduction of the MINIS system, the Department is now saving the equivalent of £70 million a year on wages that it no longer has to pay.

Mr. Marks: Does that explain why the new chief executive of the Property Services Agency gets 50 per cent. more than his predecessor when the department concerned is being reduced in size?

Mr. Heseltine: I think it will rapidly be found that he earns the extra money that he receives.

New Town Houses (Repairs)

Mr. Dormand: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he now expects to receive the report from the National Building Agency concerning repairs to houses in new towns.

The Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr. John Stanley): As I told the hon. Member on 20 January, my right hon. Friend expects on present plans to receive this report by the end of May.

Mr. Dormand: How much longer does the Minister intend to prevaricate on this matter in relation to the new town of Peterlee? The delay is little short of a scandal. Is he not aware, as a result of the visit to Peterlee by his hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young), a few weeks ago, of the tremendous difficulties suffered by literally hundreds of families there? Will he authorise an immediate substantial payment so that Easington district council can proceed with many of the repairs now needed for some of these people to live in decent conditions?

Mr. Stanley: The hon. Gentleman refers to prevarication. I remind him that the Association of District Councils first made representations on this issue to the Labour Government in March 1977. The Labour Government produced no outcome by the time they left office. Within a matter of months of the Conservative Government taking office an offer was made to the Association of District Councils, which, unhappily, it was unable to accept. We hope to have the report by the end of May. I remind the hon. Gentleman that three-quarters

of the way through the present financial year Easington had spent only 58 per cent. of its housing capital allocation and housing capital receipts.

Mr. Newens: On what basis does the Minister have the effrontery to put the blame on the previous Government when three years have elapsed since the present Government came to office? Does he not recognise that this problem has been handled in an absolutely clumsy manner and that there have been completely unjustified delays? How on earth does he expect new town local authorities to plan when they have experienced similar problems over rate support grant decisions?

Mr. Stanley: I suspect that the hon. Gentleman did not hear what I said in reply to the hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Dormand). The previous Government did nothing for two years. We made an offer to the Association of District Councils within a matter of months of coming to office. The association was not able to accept the offer. That is why we have had to go to the National Building Agency for the survey.

Mr. Graham: Will the Minister bear in mind that anything less than a generous response will be seen as totally inadequate and in bad faith? Does he acknowledge that councillors have been very patient? Will he confirm undertakings previously given that, before the level of grants is finally determined, full consultation will take place with the councils involved?

Mr. Stanley: I can confirm what was said by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State in the debate on what became the New Towns Act and that there will be consultation with the authorities concerned.

Hazardous Waste (Importation)

Mr. Hardy: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has completed his consultations with industry and local authority associations about his proposals on the import of hazardous waste; and if he will make a statement.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Giles Shaw): Following the Department's review of the controls over imported waste, I announced proposals on 17 December 1981 in a written reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Scunthorpe (Mr. Brown). Consultation with industry, local authorities and other interests began on the same date. A few of the principal consultees are still considering their response to the proposals.

Mr. Hardy: Is the Minister aware that the present situation can justly be described as absurd, not least in regard to weaknesses in the collection and use of information which may be a factor as Britain becomes the dumping ground for every dangerous item of waste in Europe and from further afield?

Mr. Shaw: I repudiate the suggestion made by the hon. Gentleman. I think that he is referring to the importation of Dutch waste, which was 95 per cent. water.

Mr. Farr: Does my hon. Friend agree that, apart from the importation of hazardous waste into Britain, there are also problems associated with the transportation as well as the final disposal of waste within Britain? Will he look into these aspects?

Mr. Shaw: My hon. Friend will be aware of the arrangements made by waste disposal authorities for the selection of sites suitable for handling special waste. I have already reviewed the regulations on this matter and am satisfied that they are working satisfactorily.

Dr. David Clark: Does the Minister appreciate that, despite his disapproval of what my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Hardy) said, Britain is becoming widely regarded as the dustbin of the world not only for Dutch waste but for waste from the United States, Japan, Eire, Denmark and other parts of the world?
Does he not realise that much of this hazardous waste is stored in east coast ports or is simply poured down disused coal mines? When will he treat this as an urgent problem? When can some action be expected from the Government following the review?

Mr. Shaw: I remind the hon. Gentleman that the Government took immediate action over the incident relating to the importation of Dutch waste. That led to the review of the regulations and to the consultations that are still proceeding.
In regard to the hon. Gentleman's claim that the United Kingdom is becoming a dumping ground, I remind him that we have a significant legitimate trade in the processing of waste. Much imported waste becomes primary raw material for other industries—for example, paper and board. Many jobs are at stake. I am determined to preserve those jobs.

Dwellings for Sale (Improvements)

Mr. Trippier: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many local authorities have, since May 1979, carried out schemes for the improvement of dwellings for sale.

Mr. Stanley: The improvement for sale scheme under the Housing Act 1980 came into effect only in November 1980. We understand that since then approximately 71 local authorities have undertaken improvement for sale.

Mr. Trippier: I thank my hon. Friend for his encouraging reply. What evidence exists that this is helping people, who otherwise would be unable to move into home ownership from rented accommodation?

Mr. Stanley: The initial results are very encouraging. The Housing Corporation has conducted a survey of purchasers of the initial houses bought under the improvement for sale scheme. That survey showed that nearly 60 per cent. of the purchasers were under 30 years of age and that one-third of them vacated either local authority or housing association rented accommodation, thereby easing the pressure on rented accommodation.

Mr. Spriggs: Is the Minister aware that some people in St. Helens are living in privately owned accommodation that is unfit for human habitation? The hon. Gentleman was asked about the sale of council property. Will he also consider a special grant to allow local authorities to build more council houses so that people may have homes that are fit to live in?

Mr. Stanley: I hope that St. Helens will make full use of the additional allocation provided by my right hon. Friend for the 1982–83 financial year. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will also welcome the substantial

expansion of improvement grants announced last week by my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Mr. Banks: Are there not many instances of private firms being denied opportunites of tendering for work of this nature because of the activities of direct labour organisations in local authorities? Will my hon. Friend consider reducing the threshold from £100, 000 to perhaps £50, 000 to enable those firms to tender for that sort of work?

Mr. Stanley: My hon. Friend will be aware that this matter does not arise directly out of the improvement for sale scheme. He may be aware also that my right hon. Friend has laid an order that will have the effect of reducing the tendering threshold for highway works from £100, 000 to £50, 000.

Bricks

Mrs. Renée Short: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his latest estimate of the demand for bricks.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Sir George Young): Brick deliveries in January this year were 161 million.

Mrs. Short: The Minister has not answered the question. Is he aware that last year the demand for bricks was the lowest in any peace time year this century due to the cutback in public sector housing and the decline in demand in the private sector? What does he intend to do to ensure that brick firms are producing bricks in two years' time when the Labour Party takes over and starts the building programme again?

Sir George Young: The hon. Lady asked for the latest estimate of demand. The best estimate of demand is the figure for deliveries—161 million. I hope that the brick industry will respond to the measures taken in the Budget, but the industry has to compete with other construction materials. The industry has been losing its share of the market. It is not solely a matter of the recession affecting the industry.
Turning to the position in two years' time—when we shall be continuing to have responsibility for the construction industry—I point out that the Government have given the Construction Industry Training Board an additional £3 million this year for the continued training of apprentices and award holders.

Mr. Latham: Is not the demand for bricks likely to be increased considerably by the recent excellent decision to cut the mortgage rate and by the help given in the Budget for improvement work?

Sir George Young: My hon. Friend is quite right. I hope that all hon. Members will rejoice in the increase in private sector starts that has already taken place.

Mrs. Ann Taylor: Will the Minister confirm that there are record stockpiles of bricks in Britain? Will he also confirm that there are enough bricks to house 250, 000 people, to build a new city the size of Leicester, or, indeed, three Tonbridge and Maldons? As there are 400, 000 building workers unemployed, why does the Minister not advocate more action to bring those resources together and build much-needed houses?

Sir George Young: Tonbridge and Maldon would be a very interesting constituency. There are about 25 weeks' supply at current demand levels. I am sure that the incentive that my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave both to home buyers and to the construction industry will ensure that those stocks start to be used.

Homeless Persons

Mr. Ron Brown: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many homeless people were housed by local authorities under the provision of the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act 1977 during 1981.

Sir George Young: Statistics collected by my Department relate only to England. In 1980–81 some 43, 000 council dwellings were let to the homeless.

Mr. Brown: Is not the operation of this Act a disgrace and a scandal? Does the Minister not appreciate the misery and suffering endured by many thousands of single homeless people in England and in Scotland? Does he not appreciate that Government policies are responsible for that misery and in a very real sense for the tent city that will grow up as a result? It was the present Government, not Peter Tatchell, who thought up that idea.

Sir George Young: As the hon. Gentleman may know, we are currently reviewing the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act 1977 and the code of guidance. We hope to announce our conclusions shortly. We are certainly considering all the representations that have been made to us. In the meantime, my Department has taken some initiatives to solve the real problems facing the homeless, including an increased allocation to the Housing Corporation to help people in that category.

Mr. Stanbrook: As the operation of the Act is, in practice, monstrously unfair to those already on homeless housing lists, because it enables others from outside to jump the queue, will my hon. Friend expedite his proposals for its amendment?

Sir George Young: We have received many representations on the subject, and several local authorities have made the point made by my hon. Friend. We have taken that point on board, and we hope that the review will be completed shortly.

Mr. Cartwright: Does the Minister accept that the problems of the single homeless have been a major factor in increasing housing waiting lists in many London boroughs? Will he do more to encourage local authorities to tackle the problem by promoting shared use of some of the less attractive family flats that stand empty for so long?

Sir George Young: I agree that much could be done by local authorities within existing resources to help the homeless. Certainly the imaginative use of empty houses is one possibility. More properties being used as hostels is another. Some of our initiatives—for example, to allow public sector tenants to take in lodgers—have helped to reduce homelessness.

Mr. Squire: In the review that my hon. Friend has mentioned, will he undertake to consider those instances where more than one local authority is claimed as the possible supplier of housing, and especially the way in which the giving authority sometimes suffers at the expense of the taking authority?

Sir George Young: All hon. Members are aware of people being shuffled from one local authority to another. There is an arbitration procedure that should work in such cases to resolve once and for all which local authority is responsible.

Mr. Stallard: Is the Minister aware of the near-crisis in London in the provision of hostel and housing accommodation for the single homeless? Will he assure the House that he will not give in to demands to weaken the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act 1977 in any way? Rather, will he seriously consider how more resources can be allocated to those local authorities that are trying to tackle the problem?

Sir George Young: We have already increased the resources available to the Housing Corporation to try to tackle the problem. As to the first part of the question, the hon. Gentleman must await the outcome of the review.

Mr. David Atkinson: Does my hon. Friend accept that every time he uses the word "shortly" in reply to a question about when the review will be completed, he is getting away with murder, because the review has now taken four years? Does he recall his predecessor's answer to me that an announcement could be expected after the Summer Recess 1980?

Sir George Young: We seem to have fulfilled that commitment. The issues involved are complex and wide-ranging, and it is important that we give them careful consideration.

Sports Council

Mr. Dobson: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will review the workings and finances of the Sports Council; and if he will make a statement.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Neil Macfarlane): I have already reviewed the overall structure of the Sports Council with the aim of refining and improving its workings. I am in the process of slimming down membership by about one-third, and the chairman has reorganised the committee structure.
Subject to parliamentary approval, the Sports Council's grant-in-aid for 1982–83 will be £22·8 million. I have already met the chairman and agreed his budget proposals for that year. They reflect Government thinking by concentrating resources on the inner city areas. My officials have also discussed with the council's officials their long-term strategy and five-year rolling programme, which I expect to be submitted to me shortly.

Mr. Dobson: When continuing his discussions with the Sports Council, will the Under-Secretary of State draw to the attention of the chairman the damaging effects of the untimely and ill-considered visit that he and some of his colleagues made to South Africa in 1980 and the contribution that that has made to the weakening in Britain of the back-up to the Gleneagles agreement? In future, will he ensure that the Sports Council does not subordinate the interests of other sports in Britain to those pressure groups from South Africa that wish to make that racist regime respectable, and in that way not follow the example of the Conservative Party's Back Bench sports group?

Mr. Macfarlane: Perhaps I might set the record straight. The fact-finding visit by representatives of the


Sports Council was made in January 1980. On 1 May 1981 the Sports Council agreed that it would continue its policy of supporting the Gleneagles agreement.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Sports Council's main objective should now be to provide more facilities for the young unemployed? Is he aware that there are many playing fields attached to schools—the matter has been raised by some of us before—that are not used for large periods of the year? Is it not time that he contacted the education authorities and used his influence to get them to make those facilities available for use?

Mr. Macfarlane: Yes, I accept that. Some issues have emerged in recent months. A sample survey, completed a few months ago, showed that in about 10 per cent. of local authorities, generally speaking, dual use in our schools is extremely encouraging, but there is still much work to be done. I have recently commissioned a survey, conducted by the chairman and management of the regional councils for sport and recreation, which shows good evidence that there is adequate provision of school playing fields for dual use. However, I am not yet satisfied that they are doing enough, and I shall make further moves in the next few weeks.

Mr. Denis Howell: In view of the unprecedented offers now being made to British sportsmen to forgo the interests of British sport, what action is the Sports Council taking through the governing bodies, and through talking to individual sportsmen, to protect the livelihoods of those still playing in Britain and to protect the great international sporting occasions, such as the Commonwealth Games, which will certainly be under threat if this activity continues?

Mr. Macfarlane: The right hon. Gentleman's point is important, but it is not necessarily the sole prerogative of the Sports Council to communicate the views of the Government to the governing bodies. I, too, discuss matters with governing bodies. However, I am encouraged by the fact that the Sports Council, as recently as 1 May 1981, reaffirmed its intention to support the Government on the Gleneagles agreement.

Water Charges

Mr. Allen McKay: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will seek to amend section 30(5) of the Water Act 1973 to provide that retirement pensioners and those in low income groups are given special consideration.

Mr. Giles Shaw: No, Sir. Water service charges are already taken into account when calculating supplementary benefit. In addition, water authorities will, on request, allow customers to pay by instalments. Several areas operate saving stamp schemes.

Mr. McKay: Does the Minister realise that his reply will be noted outside the House? Is he aware that he has not taken into consideration those who are now appearing before the county courts and that to pay the water rate bailiffs may have entered their homes to take away furniture that they have had for a long time? Does he also realise that, for the first time, the water authorities have imposed a standing charge of £5? Will he now reconsider his answer and at least rid people of this water charge?

Mr. Shaw: I understand the hon. Gentleman's anxiety about customers threatened with disconnection, but in the last full year the total number involved in England and Wales was 6, 294, of whom the vast majority were in the Thames water authority area. It is against that background that the hon. Gentleman must recognise that the absolute risk to people is not great. At the same time, the Government have a duty to support the water authorities in the recovery of legitimate charges.

Mr. Dudley Smith: Will my hon. Friend take into account the burning resentment of pensioners, single people and childless couples who live next door to families of five or six, yet they pay exactly the same water rate?

Mr. Shaw: It is, in part, for that reason that consumers are now offered optional metering. The amount of water consumed can then be related to their charges. I suspect that that will help to relieve some of the comparative problems raised by my hon. Friend.

Mr. Woodall: Is the Minister aware that many pensioners, and widows in particular, have for the first time in their lives received a rate demand for water and sewerage? Some of the widows and pensioners who have written to me have received demands for £80·85, but they cannot pay that sum because they do not have the money. It is no use sending a sympathetic letter stating that they may be allowed to pay by instalments. Widows and pensioners do not have that kind of money. Therfore, will the hon. Gentleman reconsider his reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone (Mr. McKay)?

Mr. Shaw: I shall not reconsider the reply that I gave to the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. McKay). I emphasise that in many cases those who find it difficult to pay their water charges can get relief through the DHSS system. We are concerned about payment for a service that they receive, not rate rebate.

Mr. Neale: Will my hon. Friend take into account the annoyance felt by many pensioners in the West Country who are called upon to pay an environmental charge when they have neither water nor sewage facilities connected to their properties, and the fury of commercial ratepayers who are called upon by the water authorities to pay a full rate when they also have neither of those facilities?

Mr. Shaw: I fully understand my hon. Friend's point. Many customers who do not enjoy the full range of facilities resent paying in part for the facilities enjoyed by others. The fact remains that water charges are levied largely upon consumption, partially on the contribution to the supply and partially on the environmental and other aspects that are shared by everyone in any region.

Council House Rents

Mr. Campbell-Savours: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the latest available information on the average increase in council rents in England.

Mr. Stanley: The average unrebated council house rent in England for 1981–82 is estimated to be £11·50 per dwelling per week, compared with £8·18 per dwelling per week for 1980–81.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Is the Minister aware that the latest disgraceful increases are regarded by the 6 million


council householders in this country as a tax on council tenants? Is he aware of the deep distress in the Northern region and in my constituency, where council tenants are now required to pay a higher proportion of their incomes on council rents than at any time since 1931? Does the Minister also understand that when he removes £¾ million from the local economy in Workington, he is throwing people out of work? That is the result of his rents strategy.

Mr. Stanley: As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, at least half of all local authority tenants will not pay the increase in the rents for which his local authority is asking.

Mr. Stallard: What about the other half?

Mr. Stanley: Given the number of local authority tenants in receipt of supplementary benefit and rent rebate, there is a substantial measure of rent protection there. The hon. Gentleman referred to the level of rent increases. One wishes that the Labour Party would show the same concern about rate increases, for example by the GLC, that are also imposed on council tenants.

Mr. Heddle: Does my hon. Friend not agree that had the Labour Party not been so lily-livered when in Government, and had it increased rents reasonably in line with incomes, the rent increases now proposed by the Secretary of State would not have been so great? Does he further agree that the increase in rents as opposed to incomes is only half as much for the council sector as it is for those in the private sector with mortgage repayments?

Mr. Stanley: My hon. Friend is absolutely right about the position under the previous Government. During the previous Administration, rents increased by only 65 per cent. while earnings went up by 110 per cent. Therefore, in no way did rents stay in line with incomes. My hon. Friend is, therefore, absolutely right.

Mr. Frank Allaun: Does not the blame for this third increase in three years lie squarely on this Government's shoulders? As an owner-occupier myself, is it not grossly unfair that council tenants should have their subsidy reduced by £600 million—nearly half—in one year while at the same time the subsidy for owner-occupiers should go up to £1, 960 million a year?

Mr. Stanley: If the hon. Gentleman is saying that he is in favour of a reduction in mortgage tax relief for owner-occupiers—

Mr. Allaun: No, the opposite.

Mr. Stanley: —I hope that that will become widely known, because many owner-occupiers would like to know whether that is Labour Party policy.

Mr. Chapman: As half the number of council house tenants receive rent rebates of one sort or another, would it not be fairer to compare rent levels with average earnings? Has there been a movement in the percentage of the former relative to the latter over the last decade?

Mr. Stanley: Broadly speaking, during the last decade—taking into account the period of this Government and the period of the last Government—rents have remained broadly in line wth earnings.

Partnership Committees

Mr. Stevens: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will reconsider his decision to exclude the private sector from membership of partnership committees.

Mr. Heseltine: No, Sir. I want to keep the partnership committees and the attendant bureaucracy as small as possible. Partnership authorities have been told, however, that their inner area programmes will not be approved if there has not been adequate consultation with the private sector. This appears to be producing the involvement I want to see.

Mr. Stevens: Is my right hon. Friend aware that at some meetings up to 60 participants, all from the public sector, are present? Does he not agree that, with regard to the Lambeth partnership scheme, where every Conservative councillor is excluded—even though there are 22 Conservative councillors to 36 Labour councillors—some change in the balance of representation is desirable?

Mr. Heseltine: I sympathise with my hon. Friend's suggestion that we wish to see a greater private sector input. My own experience—not in Lambeth, but elsewhere—is that we are able to achieve a substantial private sector input without the question of the formal membership of the committee being involved.

House Building (Greater London)

Mr. Thomas Cox: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the latest number of (a) private and (b) council housing starts for the Greater London Council area.

Sir George Young: In 1981, about 2, 000 local authority and 5, 000 private sector dwellings were started in the Greater London area.

Mr. Cox: Is the Minister aware that that deplorable reply illustrates the total collapse of the Government's housing policy? Is he further aware that next Tuesday there will be a major lobby of this House by the unions involved in the construction industry? Will he give an assurance that he will meet representatives from those unions so that he can learn at first hand just what is happening to building workers who are now on the dole as a direct result of the Government's failure to deal with housing need?

Sir George Young: I understand that my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Construction has agreed to see Len Murray on this subject. Housing starts as a whole in Greater London, including the private sector, were 8, 082 in 1981—an increase from the figure of 7, 500 in 1980. The hon. Gentleman should take into account the fact that last April 40, 000 local authority dwellings in London were empty.

Mr. Douglas-Mann: Does the Minister accept that London is one of the areas with the greatest housing stress? Has he yet been able to study the report of the Housing Research Foundation, which assesses the overall need for housing to be something in the order of 270, 000 houses a year—a figure close to that contained in the 1977 Green Paper, on which the Secretary of State has poured such scorn? Do the Government now accept that they are completely failing to meet urgent housing needs, which have been positively confirmed by the report?

Sir George Young: The hon. Gentleman has failed to mention that the Government have introduced many initiatives to boost low-cost home ownership involving the private sector, thereby bringing home ownership within the reach of many. He has failed also to take account of the home improvement scheme. To take housing starts as a proxy for meeting housing need is to consider only part of the picture.

Mr. Ward: If my hon. Friend meets representatives of the construction industry next week, will he encourage them to investigate the amount of work that is still being farmed out to direct labour organisations instead of being put out to proper tender to help the construction industry? Will he encourage them also to ask local authorities to use some of the funds that they have available from the sale of council houses to produce more capital construction?

Sir George Young: My hon. Friend is right on both counts. He will know that yesterday my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State laid an order dealing with direct labour, from which I am sure he will draw encouragement. Last Saturday my right hon. Friend drew attention to the tremendous underspend that many local authorities incurred during the current year because they failed realistically to respond to our campaign to enable council tenants to buy their own homes and failed to spend the receipts that that policy generated.

Mrs. Ann Taylor: In view of the low number of starts and the length of council house waiting lists in London, will the Minister dissociate himself from the statement of the recently knighted Sir Laurie Barratt, who has said that there is an adequate stock of council housing? Will he say publicly that he rejects Sir Laurie Barratt's other suggestion that when a council tenant's income rises above a certain level he should be forced to move into the private sector?

Sir George Young: It is not the policy of this Administration to force council tenants to move into the private sector and we have never so made it. Next year London will receive HIP allocations equivalent to over £200 per household compared with less than £100 per household in the rest of the country. We have tried to look after London's needs.

Mr. Squire: I welcome all the initiatives that the Government have taken. Does my hon. Friend recognise that housing starts in neither the private nor the public sectors appear to be able to reduce the growing number of single homeless, especially in greater London?

Sir George Young: I have referred to some of the initiatives that the Government have taken to try to tackle the problem of the single homeless. I understand that there' is an Adjournment debate on the subject tomorrow evening, during which the arguments will be developed further.

Liverpool

Mr. Alton: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what additional public funds from his Department's Vote have been allocated to projects in Liverpool since his visit last summer; whether any projects in Liverpool had the level of public funds available to them reduced in the same period; and if he will name the projects concerned in each case.

Mr. Heseltine: I have allocated £18 million additional funds to Liverpool for 1982–83. The principal programmes involved are the urban programme, the housing investment programme and that of the Merseyside Development corporation. A number of other proposals are under active consideration. In addition, the Liverpool city council is free to use the flexibility of the capital expenditure controls system to supplement its allocations by, for example, using its capital receipts and the 10 per cent. year-to-year tolerance. I know of no project for which I have a direct responsibility where the level of public funds has been reduced.

Mr. Alton: I am grateful for the fact that some of the £23·5 million that Liverpool has lost over the past two years appears to have been restored. Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that one of the most chronic problems that Liverpool has to face is the escalation of crime to a level at which one crime is committed every four minutes? In that context a reduction this year in the budget of the Merseyside police of £500, 000 is unacceptable. Will the right hon. Gentleman take every step possible to have that money reinstated so that 1, 000 extra community policemen may be put back on the beat in Liverpool?

Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman has misunderstood the point about the £23 million. That is an allocation to the county as opposed to the district, and that sum has not left the area. The disposition of the Merseyside county council police budget is a matter for the authority and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department.

Mr. Steen: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the secret of the successful regeneration of the inner areas is not more provision from public funds but the involvement of those living and working in the inner city areas in the decision-making process? Is my right hon. Friend considering how he can extend the involvement of local people in the programmes that he has so ably started?

Mr. Heseltine: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who has great experience in these matters. I do not think that I would go quite as far as to say that it is an either, or situation. There is probably a need for both aspects of the problem to be examined. However, the provision of more public money is not of itself a solution to the inner city problem.

Mr. Parry: Will the right hon. Gentleman accept that there has been widespread disappointment on Merseyside since his appointment last July? What initiatives does he intend to present to the Cabinet with a view to reducing unemployment and deprivation on Merseyside, especially in inner Liverpool? Will he make a statement on his recent meeting with the newly elected leader of the Merseyside county council?

Mr. Heseltine: I make it my responsibility to keep in close touch with the leaders of the elected majority parties on Merseyside. In that context I asked to see the new leader of the Merseyside county council for an informal discussion of the way in which I could work with the authority. I cannot accept the assumption that there has been disappointment with the work that I have been doing on Merseyside. I never tried to pretend that the general economic decline, which stretches back perhaps over 70 years, could be reversed in seven months.

Mr. Thornton: All of us on Merseyside will welcome my right hon. Friend's work in Toxteth, following the most distressing events that took place last year. However, does he accept that there is genuine concern among those in other parts of Liverpool, who feel that they are perhaps becoming disadvantaged by an over-concentration on the events that took place in Toxteth and an over-concentration of the moneys that are available to Liverpool in that area?

Mr. Heseltine: I appreciate the concern that my hon. Friend mentions. I stress that much of my time is devoted to areas other than Liverpool 8, and to areas outside Liverpool. I have been widely involved in projects that extend across Merseyside and I shall continue to be so.

Mr. Dan Jones: Will the Minister direct some of the money into Burnley—

Mr. Speaker: Order. On that basis we could go round the whole of the United Kingdom. The hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Jones) should table a question on Burnley. If he does so, he will obtain a more adequate reply.

Mr. Jones: May I persist for a minute or two, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that the House will be tolerant for a moment. There are some special reasons in this instance, which I am not free to disclose.

Mr. Jones: Yes, Mr. Speaker, there are sound reasons, because the Minister and ministerial colleagues whom he has sent to Burnley have produced a succession of reports and he has done sweet Fanny Adams in response to them.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has conveyed his views.

South Africa (Sporting Links)

Mr. John Carlisle: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if Her Majesty's Government will issue advice to sportsmen intending to visit South Africa on the application of the provisions of the Gleneagles agreement to such visits.

Mr. Macfarlane: All governing bodies are aware of the Government's position on the Gleneagles agreement. It is for them in the first instance to advise their members.

Mr. Carlisle: Will my hon. Friend emphasise that the Gleneagles agreement, however innocuous it may be, is merely a discouragement of sporting links with South Africa, and that Her Majesty's Government have no intention of restricting the freedom of choice of sportsmen who intend to play as to where they play and against whom they play? Will he advise sporting bodies, such as the Test and County Cricket Board, that they have no right to victimise players or to withhold a livelihood from players who exercise their own freedom of choice to go to South Africa?

Mr. Macfarlane: I hope that my hon. Friend will raise his surveillance to the world problems and the importance of multi-racial sport at home and abroad. The Government signed the Gleneagles agreement in 1977 and reaffirmed it last October in Melbourne. It is entirely for the Test and County Cricket Board how it approaches the dialogue with the cricketers who have gone to South Africa. It is not for me.

Mr. Denis Howell: rose—

Mr. Robert Atkins: Who went to Moscow?

Mr. Howell: The suggestion that I went with Aston Villa to Moscow to give comfort to the Russians is ludicrous. As it is the return leg tonight, will the Minister join me in sending greetings to Aston Villa in the hope that it will complete the discomfiture of the Russian football team?
Does the Minister agree that the cricket authorities have done all that they can be expected to do to uphold the Gleneagles agreement, and have been stopped from doing more only by the deception of the cricketers involved, which has put the livelihood of their colleagues in jeopardy? Have the rugby authorities taken a similarly strong line about the clubs of Gloucester and Cardiff? In view of the importance of this issue to world sport and to the Commonwealth Games, will the Minister, either himself or through the Sports Council, call all sports bodies together to consider those great questions for the collective good of British sport?

Mr. Macfarlane: I gladly endorse the right hon. Gentleman's hopes that Aston Villa, and our other football clubs, should do well in European trophies and championships.
The International Cricket Conference and the Test and County Cricket Board over the years have made it clear that they will not have matches against South African cricket teams. A number of other international governing bodies have followed suit. So far the Rugby Football Union has not given such directions, but I believe that it is something that it will have to consider, as over 100 nations now play Rugby Union. On the other hand, individuals are free to leave the country to participate in sport, but they must acknowledge the problems. The previous Administration took a similar view.

Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: As the Government went out of their way to reaffirm the Gleneagles agreement, is it not likely that in the months ahead the people of Britain will appreciate that the activities of the so-called sportsmen in South Africa are shortsighted, selfish and in the long run against the spirit of multi-racial sport, the interests of their colleagues and the long-term interests of the Commonwealth?

Mr. Macfarlane: No one should underestimate the implications of what is involved. We are waiting to welcome the Indian and Pakistan cricket teams. I can only hope that they will still come here to play. They are welcome in the United Kingdom, as are all multi-racial sporting teams.

Mr. Roy Hughes: Will the Minister confirm that South African agents are in Britain to recruit teams for boxing, football, rowing, tennis and so on to visit South Africa? Should not the Government make such agents personae non grata, as we are bound to the Gleneagles agreement? Will the hon. Gentleman be forthright in his condemnation of the hon. Member for Luton, West (Mr. Carlisle), who is such an advocate of South African sporting links, especially as he is chairman of the Conservative Back-Bench committee on sport?

Mr. Macfarlane: Hon. Members are entitled to then-views. I cannot support the hon. Gentleman's observation. I would not know whether there are South African agents in Britain to co-ordinate a campaign to attract sportsmen to South Africa—

Mr. William Hamilton: The Minister should know.

Mr. Macfarlane: Hon. Members may suggest that I should know, but this is a democratic State.

Mr. Flannery: But the Minister knows everything about us.

Mr. Macfarlane: People are entitled to come and go freely if they have suitable visas or passports and their papers are in order. I see it as no part of my job to monitor the comings and goings of visitors to the United Kingdom.

Lake District (Planning Agreements)

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what are his intentions concerning the future of section 52 planning agreements in the Lake District.

Mr. Giles Shaw: I am still considering the representations made on the modifications that I have proposed to the relevant part of the structure plan.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Is my hon. Friend aware that many are concerned to know the fate of section 52 agreements, both people such as myself, who are opposed to them and, to be fair, those such as the planning authorities, who impose them? Will he discuss the matter with his colleagues, as an early decision is of the utmost importance?

Mr. Shaw: I accept my hon. Friend's point. We intend to review the matter and arrive at a decision shortly.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Is the Minister aware that the Lake District planning board wishes to retain the powers? Does he accept that one way to deal with the problem of second homes is to amend financial legislation? Does the hon. Gentleman agree that in these times it is utterly unacceptable that a person with two homes, one of which is within a national park, can claim tax relief against mortgage interest payments on the first home?

Mr. Shaw: I understand that the issue of second homes causes the hon. Gentleman's constituents and those of my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lonsdale (Mr. Lennox-Boyd) a great deal of difficulty. That is why we must take great care in examining the policy. A number of section 52 agreements have been enforced and some cases are coming before the courts.

Local Authorities (Private Contractors)

Mr. Anthony Grant: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will facilitate the employment by local authorities of private contractors for refuse collection, waste disposal, cleansing and ancillary services; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. King: My colleagues and I will continue to encourage local authorities to examine the scope for using private contractors for these and other services. I understand that there has been a significant increase in the number of authorities actively considering that option, as the benefits are becoming more widely appreciated.

Mr. Grant: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his answer is good news for the local authorites that have

increased the use of private contractors? Will he ensure that all the information about the comparative costs of direct labour and private enterprise is made available to elected councillors on local authorities that have not yet had the good sense to use private enterprise, so that empire-building officials cannot pull the wool over their eyes?

Mr. King: The message is now much more widely understood. The obvious savings and possible economies in a number of areas are widely convassed, and I believe that that will lead to a much greater take-up, A considerable number of authorities are inviting tenders from outside contractors for a range of different council activities.

Mr. Skinner: Is the Minister aware that in Southend, which was one of the first local authorities to try privatisation, Exclusive Cleaning Ltd., which succeeded in getting the contract, has a director who is a leading Tory councillor in St. Albans, and that the firm did not submit the lowest tender, which came from Southend's direct labour force? Is he further aware that, in the tender, Exclusive Cleaning Ltd. agreed to take on additional houses for £15 per 100, but when it got the contract it changed that to £15 for each house? Does he also know that the matter is before the district auditor, because of the massive losses arising from the acceptance of the contract by the Tory-controlled council? Will the Minister therefore issue a circular pointing out the dangers of accepting such a contract?

Mr. King: One would like to think that the hon. Gentleman's question was motivated by genuine interest in the most effective way to provide a service in Southend. The hon. Gentleman's distorted version of the facts does not tally with my understanding. I understand that Southend council is satisfied that substantial savings are being made. What is more, the people in Southend are pleased with the vast improvement in the service.

Vacant and Derelict Land

Mr. Greenway: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many acres of vacant and derelict land have been detailed in the registers set up for that purpose; and what percentage of it has been sold.

Mr. Heseltine: The 35 registers so far published reveal over 21, 000 acres of unused or underused public land of more than one acre in size. Over 500 acres have been disposed of since the scheme started and a number of other sites are in the course of negotiation.

Mr. Greenway: I welcome the progress described by my right hon. Friend, but does he agree that auction might produce faster progress in the use of land that is shown publicly on the registers? Does he agree also that auction might bring that land into use more quickly? Is he aware that in my constituency, Sir Laurie Barratt, whose firm has been mentioned earlier, bought some publicly owned land and had starter homes up and occupied in substantially less than a year? Is he not to be congratulated?

Mr. Heseltine: I certainly congratulate Sir Laurie Barratt on his remarkable achievement of providing low-cost homes for a large number of people who are buying their first house. I sympathise with the wish of my hon.


Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) to get a move on with the disposal of such land. I am encouraged to discover that although we have so far

produced only 35 registers, about half of the land is suitable for development and one-sixth of it is suitable for housing. This is, therefore, a great opportunity.

Coal Mining Subsidence (Fair Compensation) Bill

Mr. John Heddle: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Coal Mining (Subsidence) Act 1957 and the Coal Industry Act 1975; to make new provision for the making of payments in respect of damage and consequential losses caused by subsidence resulting from the working of coal; for the notification of withdrawal of support from land; and for connected purposes.
The present law on compensation, which has not been revised for some 25 years and which gives the National Coal Board considerable discretion in the treatment of claims for compensation, falls well short of protecting adequately the interests of individual home owners, tenants, business men and farmers, whose property is often damaged well beyond repair by coal mining and subsidence.
With the threat—I use that word advisedly—of coal mining hanging over huge areas of the country for many years to come, proper advance notice of mining activities and full compensation to cover consequential losses from subsidence, as is available in all other European countries, is essential in the United Kingdom.
Hon. Members will know that some legal obligations are devolved to the NCB to make good or to compensate for damage caused by subsidence and mining activities. Broadly speaking, those obligations relate only to damage to land and buildings. The legal obligation on the NCB is too loosely defined. Mr. and Mrs. John Citizen are not adequately protected in law. Nor can they necessarily be assured of receiving fair compensation for damage to their home, business premises, farm or smallholding, or for nuisance or disturbance, as would be the case if their property was in the way of a new motorway or bypass.
The reason is simple. The NCB has a duty to compensate the public according to a code of practice, but that code of practice has absolutely no standing in law. It is capable of being interpreted for the convenience of the NCB and cannot readily be challenged by an aggrieved house owner, business man, farmer or smallholder who is perhaps unfamiliar with the nooks and crannies of compensation law. Unlike the application of compensation law in all other respects, the NCB has wide discretion as to how and when to pay compensation. The board therefore has the psychological advantage of being able to act as judge and jury.
Judging from the heart-rending correspondence with many of my constituents in Staffordshire, the board has been known to offer compensation to property owners and tenants on a take-it-or-leave-it basis. I illustrate my point by drawing attention to a question and answer in a National Coal Board booklet entitled "How to make claims under the Act". It says:
Will the repairs always restore the property completely to its condition before the damage? No. in most cases the Coal Board's obligation is to do such repairs and re-decorations as are needed to make the property reasonably fit for its use at the time that the damage occurred.
Who is to say what was the state of the property when the damage occurred? Moreover, who will determine the definition of "reasonably fit"?
I understood that the basis of compensation in a fair and equitable society was to restore the property to its original

state or, if that is not possible, to compensate the owner in full. My Bill would give home owners, business men, farmers and smallholders that basic right in law.
Furthermore, the person whose property is affected by subsidence is surely unable to quantify the damage unless he or she has the opportunity to prepare a schedule of the condition of the property before the damage takes place.
The Bill requires the NCB to notify owners and occupiers of property which is liable to be affected by mining that damage is likely. It also requires that such notice should be given at least three months before work commences, to enable the property owner or tenant to prepare a schedule. At the moment, the NCB is obliged merely to place a notice in the public notices section of a local newspaper and in the London Gazette. How many of our consituents make a regular habit of reading the public notices section of their local newspaper? How often do hon. Members read the London Gazette from cover to cover?
The Bill will ensure that the intention to mine is revealed in local searches, in order to put prospective property purchasers from outside a mining area and their solicitors, who may not be familiar with that area, on inquiry. At present, the NCB has no legal duty to advise of its intentions. Nor do local authorities have any legal duty to reveal the position or extent of mining activity.
The Coal Mining (Subsidence) Act 1957 stipulates that compensation shall be based upon the amount that the property has depreciated or the cost of carrying out remedial work, whichever is the less. That is unfair. Sufficent compensation should be paid to restore a property to its former state, or, if that is impossible because the damage is so extensive, there should be sufficent to provide the aggrieved party with suitable alternative or, of practicable, identical accommodation.
Many thousands of acres of good, fertile, cultivable agricultural land are rendered unproductive and unworkable by mining activity each year. It is imperative to protect our declining stock of land. Restoration work should be carried out wherever possible, even though the cost of restoration may exceed the value of the land.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: It all has to come off the shovel.

Mr. Heddle: If the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) were to listen, he might hear something that is advantageous to his constituents.

Mr. Skinner: Not from a landowner.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) must not shout out from a sedentary position all the time. The House cannot conduct its business in that way.

Mr. Heddle: The Bill seeks to make the NCB responsible in law for consequential losses, as is already the case for householders whose property is taken in whole or in part under the Land Compensation Act 1973.
The coal industry occupies a vital and unique place in our economy and has a duty to work to win coal. For the benefit of the hon. Member for Bolsover, I am not a mining surveyor—

Mr. Skinner: The hon. Gentleman is a valuer.

Mr. Heddle: —or a mining valuer. I in no way criticise the conduct or attitude of the NCB or its employees whose duty it is to operate the code of conduct fairly and equitably.
In the light of the many letters that I and no doubt many hon. Members have received, and in view of the publicity given to heart-rending cases in which whole communities have suffered because of coal mining subsidence, I suggest that the public would be better protected if compensation were put on the same independent basis as all other forms of compensation—in the hands of an independent moderator or umpire. The National Coal Board should be divested of its role as judge and jury and cede the robes to the district valuer. Only then can Mr. and Mrs. John Citizen know that their compensation is determined not at the behest or whim of an interested party, but on the basis of fairness and equity.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. John Heddle, Sir Derek Walker-Smith, Sir Hugh Fraser, Mr. Jack Ashley, Mr. Tony Durant, Mr. Sydney Chapman and Mr. Patrick Cormack.

COAL MINING SUBSIDENCE (FAIR COMPENSATION)

Mr. John Heddle accordingly presented a Bill to amend the Coal Mining (Subsidence) Act 1957 and the Coal Industry Act 1975; to make new provision for the making of payments in respect of damage and consequent losses caused by subsidence resulting from the working of coal; for the notification of withdrawal of support from land; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 7 May and to be printed. [Bill 89.]

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY

[15TH ALLOTTED DAY]—considered

Higher Education (Scotland)

Mr. Bruce Millan: I beg to move,
That this House condemns the cuts made by Her Majesty's Government in higher education in Scotland, which are denying eductional opportunity to qualified young people, causing disruption to university finances and staffing, leading to loss of morale in all sectors of higher education, and imposing hardship on students; and calls for access to higher education to be made available at an adequate level of students' grants to those qualified and able to benefit from it.

Mr. Speaker: I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.

Mr. Milan: I noticed immediately that the Prime Minister's amendment contained no refutation of the point made in our motion, that the Government's attitude to higher education and particularly the university sector will mean the denial of education opportunities to thousands of young people. Nor does the Government amendment give any educational reason for the Government's recent action. The reason is simple. They can give no educational reason for the cuts in university and other finance now being imposed. The Government simply wish to save public expenditure. They are not concerned about the educational consequences and there are no educational reasons for anything that they have done.
This country does not overspend on higher education. Comparisons can be made with other countries, but I am always somewhat sceptical about them, as they do not always compare like with like. I shall not go into that today, but such comparisons, even heavily qualified, in no way lead one to conclude that the United Kingdom is particularly generous or extravagent in the provision of higher education. Compared with most of our industrial competitors in other parts of the world, we spend relatively poorly on higher education, and I believe that some of the deficiencies in our industrial, manufacturing and economic structure are not unconnected with that fact.
Secondly, as a general preliminary point, I should point out that what is happening in higher education today is part of a pattern affecting all our young people leaving school and amounts to a general denial of educational and employment opportunity. There is an appalling unemployment problem among school leavers, especially among those with no qualifications. The latest figure for Scotland is about 22, 000. The real figure is considerably greater, as there are 31, 000 young people on the youth opportunities programme. The real total is therefore more than 50, 000. Moreover, the vast bulk of young people find no jobs on completing a YOP course. The number finding jobs has fallen from 78 per cent in 1978–79 to 30 per cent. now.
Large numbers of 16 to 19-year-olds receive no education whatever. They are not involved in the formal or informal education system in any way. There has also been a reduction in the number of apprenticeships in


Scotland. Furthermore, those who receive education in universities or elsewhere face great problems in finding jobs when they quallify. What is happening in the universities and other sectors of higher education is part of a pattern which is making the situation much worse for many young people.
Before dealing with the universities, I wish to deal with the sector of higher education in Scotland which is the direct responsibility of the Secretary of State. In doing so, I shall comment briefly on the recent report of the Council for Tertiary Education. Clearly, discussion of that report and the way in which non-university tertiary education is organised in Scotland requires a separate debate, so I shall not be diverted into that today. I make just a few preliminary comments.
First, the report is not very persuasive about the links between the universities and non-university higher education in Scotland. I certainly agree that a national overview is required, which will have to include the universities as well as the non-university sector. I am also not particularly attracted to the continuation of what is in effect a two-tier system, with the central institutions on the one hand and the local authority sector on the other. Finally, from our experience with the University Grants Committee, with which I shall deal later, the prospect of 100 per cent. funding by the Secretary of State for further education in Scotland does not fill me with any great enthusiasm, given the kind of Government that we at present have. As those matters clearly require a separate debate, I shall not go into detail today, except to say that this whole area of provision is extremely important and it is vital that we get the structure right.
The position of local authority further education colleges in the Scottish education system was the subject of a parliamentary answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Craigen) on 17 November last year, from which it seemed that the Government actually expected a reduction in full-time equivalents for vocational education in further education colleges as well as reductions in the university and central institutions sector. If that has not happened, it is not for good educational reasons. If the reduction has not taken place, it is basically because unemployment has forced more young people into education. Also, there is now greater provision in further education colleges relating to the youth opportunities programme, as there will be subsequently for the youth training scheme. We do not yet know the educational content of the youth training scheme in any detail, but it certainly does not by itself provide any real additional educational opportunity in terms of the overall view of education at further education colleges.
With regard to the colleges of education, I shall not go through the sad and shameful history of the Government's attitude and actions. That ground has been traversed thoroughly on previous occasions. The Government have reneged on the promises that they made in Opposition. They have now closed two colleges and rationalised another, and the number of students entering the colleges in the years after 1982–83 is likely to be substantially reduced, particularly on the secondary side.
The Government will claim that as the number of pupils in secondary schools is going down, the number of students going into colleges of education will naturally fall as well. What the Government do not point out, and what the Under-Secretary of State in particular, who is always boasting about the fine pupil-teacher ratios does not

disclose is that, as the public expenditure White Paper published the other day demonstrates, the Government are planning not for an improvement in PTRs over the next few years but for a substantial deterioration. The figures are disclosed on page 60 of the White Paper.
At the moment the PTR at the primary stage, which affects the entrance to colleges of education, is 20·3. According to the Government, in 1982–83 that should deteriorate to 21·8 because that is all that they are providing finance for. In secondary schools the 1981–82 PTR is 14·4, but for the next three years the Government are providing for a deterioration of the PTR to 14·6.
These figures simply mean that if the local authorities allowed a deterioration in the pupil-teacher ratio to bring them into line with the amount of financial provision that the Government will make available in 1982–83 and subsequent years they would have to get rid of 2, 000 teachers. When the Under-Secretary of State boasts about PTRs, the House and the country are not told that the reason for these good PTRs is that local authorities are deliberately providing better ratios than the Government are providing finances for. This is part of the excessive local authority expenditure about which the Secretary of State is always complaining.
If the local authorities were to reduce PTRs in this way they would have to make teachers redundant. At least that is taken care of in the public expenditure White Paper because we are told that there is provision in subsequent years for redundancy payments to primary teachers. Far from improving the position the Government are asking local authorities to make the position worse in primary and secondary schools, by sacking primary teachers now. They will subsequently sack secondary school teachers as well.
In secondary schools in particular it is hypocrisy for the Government to be asking for the deterioration in PTRs. As the numbers of secondary pupils go down there are certain diseconomies of scale that mean that if standards are to be maintained PTRs have to be improved. The Government are keen on Munn and Dunning and want to have it implemented in secondary schools, but if that is to happen PTRs will have to improve because that requires more staff. At the very time when the numbers of pupils are going down, and Munn and Dunning is supposed to be introduced, the Government are telling local authorities to make the PTRs in the secondary schools worse. I do not believe that that will happen but if it did it would mean a considerable deterioration in standards. That is part of the background against which we must consider colleges of education in Scotland.
The Government have gone further than closing two colleges of education and rationalising one other. They are now talking about rationalisation of the courses at the secondary school level. They are also talking about reducing the secondary intake into our colleges of education from 1, 400 last year to 1, 000 this year and 500 by 1985–86. If these reductions are made we cannot maintain the college of education system that we now have in Scotland.
The Government will have to provide new tasks for the colleges of education or they will have to link the colleges in some other way with other educational institutions unless there are to be further closures in colleges of education in Scotland. If the Government proceed upon this path and insist on these reductions in the PTRs and the colleges of education there will be further closures of those


colleges. The Secretary of State must be frank, as he has not been so far, and tell us what he has in mind for colleges of education.
Some colleges thought they were all right when the previous closures were announced and that they did not have to fight with their colleagues to maintain their colleges. Some of them have already been rudely awakened by the figures published yesterday and some will have an even bigger shock in the future. So too will some Conservative Members who have listened to the honeyed words of the Secretary of State on this matter.
Central institutions are the other part of the system under the direct control of the Secretary of State. I hope that the Secretary of State can tell us about their funding today. As I understand it, he is talking—no doubt he will correct me if I am wrong—about level funding as a whole for 1982–83, with some switch of resources from art to technical colleges.
Whatever is happening, the one thing that we can be sure of is that central institutions, any more than the universities of colleges of education, will not be able to meet the demand for qualified young people leaving school who want to enter them. In particular, they will not be able to meet the demand from those young people who are denied university and college of education places because of the university and college cuts. There will be no solution to the Scottish problems through the central institutions, although I shall listen with care to what the Secretary of State has to say.
Turning from the Secretary of State's direct responsibilities, and before going on to the universities, I wish to say something about students' grants. A critical problem is developing, about which the general public are not yet fully aware. Between 1976 and 1979, the last years of the previous Labour Government—as the National Union of Students, I am glad to see, acknowledged in its submission to the Government for the grant increase for 1982–83—student grants kept pace with changes in the retail price index. Since 1979 there has been a deliberate reduction in the real value of the student grant.
The NUS reckoned that the increase that would have been required in 1982–83 to bring the grant back to the 1979 value would have been 17·4 per cent. The Government offered an increase of 4 per cent. No doubt they can argue that other people are getting 4 per cent. and that is what they are asking people to accept as a salary or wage increase in the public sector. Yet, the students will not have anything like the 4 per cent. increase, because as well as increasing the grants by only 4 per cent. the Government have also frozen the scales of parental contribution. That means considerably less than 4 per cent. in practice.
First of all, for those on the minimum grant, which is £410, the grant is frozen. About 10 per cent. who are on that grant now will have no increase. Rather more students will move on to the minimum grant because of the freezing of the parental scale. Some students who get grants above the minimum will go down to the minimum and will have a reduction. Those already on the minimum will have no increase.
On the maximum grant the increase is 4 per cent., but the number on the maximum grant will be reduced. It will not be the same percentage as in the current year because the freezing of the parental scale will reduce the total

percentage of students, which is now about 35 to 40 per cent. Some of them will have the 4 per cent. increase and some will have a reduced grant because the freezing of the parental scale will bring them down from the maximum.
Students who receive a part grant, which assumes a parental contribution, will suffer. About 50 per cent. of students are in that category. They will receive no increase. If the income of such students' parents has risen in accordance with the national average they will receive severely reduced grants in 1982–83. I hope that Government Members understand that. If they have not already received letters of complaint they can expect many when people who no doubt voted for them at the last election discover that their student sons and daughters will receive reduced grants because of the freezing of the parental scale and the small 4 per cent. increase in grants.
We do not yet know what all this means. The public expenditure White Paper is a mine of information. I am glad that the Minister responsible for education and science in Scotland is present. Page 38 of the White Paper sets out the results. Student awards in 1981–82 will cost £912 million. In 1982–83 they will cost £760 million. That is a reduction in cash terms of about £150 million. There is no adjustment for inflation in the figures.
I do not know how that figure is arrived at, but the Secretary of State must have known the average grant in Scotland for 1982–83, compared with 1981–82 before the White Paper was published. The figures in the White Paper have to be adjusted because of changes in fees. The reduction that I have mentioned is not entirely accounted for by the amount of money going to students. We should like the matter cleared up. What is the real increase for 1982–83 for England and, more particularly, for Scotland?
The Secretary of State must have the figures. What was the average grant for 1981–82 and what, after this generous settlement, will be the average grant for 1982–83? I hope that the Secretary of State will give the figures when he replies to the debate. Whatever the figures, large numbers of students will not even receive the 4 per cent. increase. Many students will receive a reduced grant in cash terms in 1982–83, despite the cost of living, for students as well as for everybody else, going up substantially.
That is not the end of the Government's meanness to students. The Secretary of State has announced that grants will no longer be paid for repeat years. A feature of our student grant system for as far back as I remember is that all students can repeat a year and still receive grant. They cannot repeat more than a year on a grant and if they have to they finance themselves. The repeat year provision is to be removed. Any student who has to repeat a year must finance himself for that year.
That is an attack on working-class students. Students from working-class backgrounds struggling through university who have to take a repeat year and who are not financed will have to abandon their courses. Students who are lucky enough to be on minimum grant, who have parents with substantial incomes, or who can find finance through their families, will be able to continue, but the Government's mean provision means that students from modest backgrounds will be forced to abandon their studies. The same is proposed for students who transfer from one course to another. Many students will not be able to continue with their university or other higher education courses.
Another meanness involves the postgraduate quotas which are to be made permanent. They were reduced in


1981–82 by 15 per cent. What will be the further reduction in 1982–83? The quota applies to everybody. Even students of the Church of Scotland and entrants to the legal and other professions will be subject to the postgraduate quota under the new system.
The public expenditure White Paper contains a sinister phrase. Perhaps the Minister responsible can explain what it means. The Government are trying to move from a system of grants to a system of student loans. I put it on record that the Labour Party opposes that. On page 40 a peculiar phrase suggests that grants to students will be frozen at the 1982–83 level for the next two years of the public expenditure programme. Do the Government intend that? Do they intend to freeze student grants for 1983–84 and 1984–85? The Government must be able to tell us whether that is their intention. If they do not intend to freeze grants I hope that the Secretary of State will explain.
Students' standards of living in 1982–83 will be reduced. It would be intolerable if in the following years there was a further reduction in the standards of living of higher education students.
When the cuts were announced by the University Grants Committee last July we made a number of criticisms. Those criticisms are as valid today as they were in July. We said that there was no educational justification for the cuts. No such justification has been produced since then. We said that there would be a denial of opportunity for thousands of young people who were able, qualified and willing to go to Scottish universities. That applies today.
Indeed, the figures published by the UGC last July understate the position. Read crudely, the figures suggest that the reduction of places in Scotland is about 1, 700. The real reduction is 3, 800, as a letter from the Under-Secretary responsible for Education and Science in Scotland to my hon. Friend the Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire (Mr. O'Neill) admitted the other day. The UGC paper in which the crude figures appear is riddled with inaccuracies. That is only one such inaccuracy.
The position is worse than that, because the figure takes no account of the fact that we have not reached the peak of potential student population in Scotland, although that peak will be reached in a couple of years.
We also said that the cuts could not be justified in terms of deployment between courses and universities, some of which are better or more attuned to modern needs than others. The favoured courses such as engineering and science will be badly affected by the cuts announced in July, as will courses in the arts, the humanities and the rest. We said that the UGC had its sums wrong. At some Scottish universities—Aberdeen is a prime example—the figures for student numbers and for finance are not even comparable arithmetically. I will come to the problem that we have in Aberdeen because of that. There was no fairness between universities. Some universities, including the new university at Stirling, were savagely attacked by the UGC.
We said that there was no point blaming the UGC because it was simply acting as hatchet man for the Government. It is the Government who are responsible, not the UGC. We said that the UGC provisions had not taken account of the four-year degree course in Scottish universities. That charge has not been answered. A number of those points were made at a meeting with the

Secretary of State for Education and Science in November. He no more answered them then than he did in the debate the following day or has done since.
We said that the timetable was too short. Even if what the Government were doing was justified, to do it over three years was absurd and would cause—in the UGC's own phrase—disorder and diseconomy in the universities. That comment has been fully justified by what has happened since last July. We also said that to carry out such a policy on that time scale would be extremely expensive. It would involve large-scale redundancies and expensive redundancy payments because many academic staff have security of tenure. Even if one were agreeable to the reductions—which we were not—to do it over a longer period would save money rather than cause additional expense. In some cases, those reductions would prejudice the viability of individual universities; Stirling was mentioned in that respect.
When we put that point to the Secretary of State for Education and Science—I am grateful to him for being here this afternoon, despite what I am about to say about him—he said that he did not really want any universities to be closed deliberately. He did not rule out the possibility that some might be closed by accident or inadvertence, but he was not setting out to close any deliberately. All those criticisms have been fully justified by events since last July and none has been answered.
I think that the Government expected that the fuss and palaver would all blow over, that universities have had such crises before but that things would soon continue calmly and easily. That has not happened. Some university expectations were equally wide of the mark. Some of them, including Scottish universities, in their innocence felt that the injustice was so blatant that they had only to explain it to the UGC for some adjustment to be made. Not a single Scottish university has had any adjustment at all in its provisions following their representations to the UGC. Indeed, in some cases, the UGC has sent them a curt letter which has not answered their points at all but simply said that nothing can be done.
One change since July is that in January the Secretary of State for Education and Science, acknowledging that there would be 5, 000 redundancies among academic staff, said that he was willing to agree a standard compulsory redundancy scheme. We do not know how much that will cost. Figures of £150 to £200 million have been floating around. What is the Government's estimate of the cost of that scheme? They have taken on an open-ended commitment. It will cost £150 to £200 million to make people unemployed, to reduce standards of academic excellence in universities and to deny university education to large numbers of our young people. It is a complete waste of money. That money should be spent on improving our educational structure and giving additional educational opportunities rather than making people unemployed.
We are now coming to the crunch. Over the next few months some disagreeable and nasty situations will arise in particular Scottish universities. It looks as if Aberdeen will be the first with 160 redundancies among its academic staff. They will be fought and fought legally. It is an absolute disaster. The UGC has not justified what is happening to Aberdeen. In Stirling there is a critical situation, with which my hon. Friends will deal. There was talk of making 62 academic, and many other non-academic, posts redundant. In Glasgow there has been talk


of 431 redundancies over the next three years, including 200 academic staff. In Strathclyde there has been talk of 250 redundancies over three years, including 112 academic staff. In St. Andrews over the next two years 50 academic and 70 non-academic staff will go. Of course, similar tales of woe are to be told at other universities that I have not mentioned.
The Government have produced unnecessary waste, confusion, bitterness and anger. At the end of the day they are not likely to have saved much, or any money. Nobody in the House or in the universities believes that our educational system must continue unchanged to the end of time. If that feeling existed in some universities until a few years ago, I do not regret that that feeling has passed. The residual lingering feeling that nothing can be changed except for the worse and that expansion in every direction, regardless of priorities, always produces better educational provision, exists only in a few departments. I do not believe that and I never have. I do not believe that it applies to other sectors of our educational system either. If change is to come, it must come within the context of a controlled overall expansion of educational opportunity and expenditure. We cannot get the necessary changes in our educational system, do justice to young people at school, deal with the appallingly difficult problems of 16 to 19-year-olds, or deal with the problems of those in higher education by a process of indiscriminate, ill-considered cuts which are doing immense damage to higher education in Scotland and elsewhere. However, that is the road that the Government have set out upon and that is why we condemn them today.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. George Younger): I beg to move, to leave out from "That" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
this House recognises the need for higher education in Scotland to bear a proportion of reductions in public expenditure and commends the steps taken by Her Majesty's Government and the University Grants Committee to re-order priorities to ensure a high standard of provision consistent with national needs.
I, too, am glad to have the opportunity this afternoon to cover this important subject. I am grateful to the Opposition for making this time available to us.
I start by making some complaints to the Opposition about the somewhat strange arrangements under which we are discussing this matter. The right hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) quite properly devoted a great deal of his speech to the changes that have taken place in the universities. I should have thought that it would be appropriate to have proper arrangements for the right hon. and hon. Gentlemen who are directly responsible to have an opportunity to speak in the debate.
I am surprised that those Labour Members who are responsible for shadowing the Department of Education and Science—the hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock) made a short appearance—have not made an appearance. That is to be regretted. Both my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science and my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Waldegrave), who have direct responsibilities for the universities, have heard what the right hon. Gentleman has said.
The right hon. Gentleman's contribution to the debate is deeply disappointing. He rightly expands at length and

with great care on all the things that anyone could find that were unsatisfactory about educational provisions in the higher sphere, but if the right hon. Gentleman's position as Opposition spokesman on Scotland means anything, he should have considered the matter in a more responsible and round fashion.
Anyone can list the things that he would like to see in higher education without paying the slightest regard to the availablility of the money to finance it. It is the easiest thing in the world to do that. I could easily spend half an hour or more listing all the things that I should like to see in higher education, but I should have to ignore the question whether there was enough money to finance them or where one could find such money.

Mr. John Maxton: rose—

Mr. Younger: I have only just begun my speech and I shall not give way at present. It is understandable that a Back Bencher might make such a speech, but it is deplorable that the right hon. Gentleman should make no reference to the availability of money to finance the task to which he referred.
The right hon. Gentleman had the effrontery to mention teacher training colleges. Someone from Mars, listening to the debate, might think that that was the aspect that had most deeply shocked the right hon. Gentleman. He might think that the right hon. Gentleman was shocked that anyone should reduce teacher training provision, yet only a few years ago the right hon. Gentleman proposed to close or amalgamate no fewer than four colleges.

Mr. Robert Hughes: rose—

Mr. Younger: When the arrangements that the right hon. Member for Craigton had made were shown to be inadequate, he abandoned his scheme. The right hon. Gentleman did not mention that today. He gave many figures for pupil-teacher ratios. Of all people, I should not have expected the right hon. Gentleman to make a mistake when using figures to make a point. He is far more expert on figures than most of us will ever be, but, from the way that he presented his case, I gathered that he had taken the present pupil-teacher ratios and compared them with the provisions in the rate support grant for the coming year.
If the right hon. Gentleman were to compare like with like, he would find a different story. If the right hon. Gentleman were to look at the rate support grants—about which he always complains—he would find that there had been provision in each year for an improvement in the pupil-teacher ratio in primary and secondary education. That goes for the coming year as well. I should have thought that the right hon. Gentleman would know that that was the right way of doing things.

Mr. Millan: Does the Secretary of State want, or expect, local authorities to reduce pupil-teacher ratios to the levels in the White Paper? Is that what he is asking them to do?

Mr. Younger: Local authorities are perfectly free to do that. [Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Craigton and the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) must face the fact that the provisions in the rate support grant settlements allow for the highest ever pupil-teacher ratios. [Interruption.] If local authorities have chosen to spend more and to produce even better ratios, that is their decision. My provisions allow for the highest ever ratios. The right hon. Gentleman should at least admit that.

Mr. Millan: The right hon. Gentleman is always lecturing local authorities on their extravagent expenditure. Will he now answer my question? He is providing only for badly deteriorating pupil-teacher ratios. Does he expect local authorities to reduce their standards to his?

Mr. Younger: That is the same question as the right hon. Gentleman asked before. I certainly expect local authorities to reduce their expenditure to reasonable levels. If they choose to do so by reducing their standards, that is their business. My job is to provide for them in the rate support grant. The right hon. Gentleman should know that the pupil-teacher ratios in primary and secondary schools that are provided for in the rate support grant have improved by 0·1 per cent. in each case from 1981–82 to 1982–83. Pupil-teacher ratios will be held steady at that level until 1984–85. Therefore, the lower figures shown for 1980–81 and 1981–82 represent the actual level of staffing and not the staffing levels provided for in the rate support grant. [Interruption.] I think that I have dealt satisfactorily with that point.
The debate covers higher education generally. I cannot speak for the chorus line on the Opposition Back Benches, but those members will get their chance to speak later.—[Interruption.] As this is a short debate I shall try to cover in the briefest time possible the whole spectrum of higher education.

Mr. Barry Henderson: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Although we are grateful to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for waking up Opposition Members after the opening speech by the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan), it would be helpful to hear my right hon. Friend's speech. It is continually being interrupted by Opposition Members, who will no doubt catch your eye in due course.

Mr. George Foulkes: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The debate would be better and there would be less noise from Opposition Members if the Secretary of State had the courage to let hon. Members intervene in his speech.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): The best way to debate the subject is to allow the Secretary of State to be heard.

Mr. Younger: I probably have the best record for giving way. In the space of about six minutes I have given way three times, and I shall not give way again. [Interruption.] Front-Bench Members are the most prestigious and one should give way to them. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, East (Mr. Henderson) for pointing out that I have succeeded not only in waking up the Opposition—itself quite a feat—and drawing some Opposition Members to the Chamber—which is an unusual pleasure—but in rousing the Opposition to make enough noise to attract the hon. Member for Bedwellty back into the Chamber. That is very welcome. [Interruption.]
In the brief time available I shall give as many answers as possible to the questions that have been raised about higher education. We should get the balance of our higher education system into perspective. The number of students in Scotland in higher education is divided into the proportion attending each of the sections that make up higher education. In the session 1981–82, 45, 000 students are taking full-time courses at our eight universities;

17, 000 in the central institutions and colleges of education and 11, 000 in full-time or sandwich advanced courses in the colleges of further education. That is a total of 73, 000, of which 62 per cent. attend universities and 38 per cent. colleges in the public sector. That clearly shows the great importance in Scotland of the central institutions in higher education as a whole.
It would have been much more appropriate for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science to deal with the universities, but as I keep in close touch with the Scottish universities and my right hon. Friend, I should be happy to say a few words about the university system in Scotland.

Mr. Maxton: rose—

Mr. Younger: I must press on, otherwise I shall take up too much time.
We can at least unite in regretting that it might be necessary to halt a process of expansion in higher education that began in the Robbins era and that there now must be some reduction in the level of funding. However, there are two significant differences between the Government and the Opposition. First, we recognise the reality of the economic situation, while the Labour Party consistently refuses to do so. Over the years successive Governments have allocated considerable resources to the establishment of new universities and colleges, and to the development of existing institutions. Expansions could not continue in a period of economic stagnation, and therefore some retrenchment is inevitable.
Secondly, the Conservative Party recognises that what is happening to the universities does not relate in any way to the death blow attitude displayed by the right hon. Member for Craigton. I agree that there are painful and difficult adjustments to make and that the total level of activity in universities—because of those changes—will be reduced, but I am certain that these economies will do no fundamental damage to the structure of our university system, which will remain well able to respond to the challenges that it will face during the years ahead.
I say that partly because the significance of the economies requested is being massively exaggerated in relation both to the total size and the fundamental health of the university system, and partly because the selectivity with which the cuts have been made by the University Grants Committee has helped to ensure that the best is being preserved and that we shall continue to have a university system that is capable of responding to the demands of the future.
After all, the reduction in numbers that is required in Scotland amounts to 4·4 per cent. of a total number which has grown every year for many years. It is a reduction that we would have preferred not to make, but it cannot be described in the totally destructive terms that the right hon. Gentleman used today.

Mr. Dick Douglas: The Secretary of State said that he had been in close touch with the principals of Scottish universities. Can he name one who agrees with the type of selectivity that the UGC has asked the universities to undertake?

Mr. Younger: It is not for me to put words into the mouths of university principals. [Interruption.] Perhaps the hon. Gentleman does not want to hear the answer to his question. He seems to be engaging in a private


discussion with his hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes)—or possibly a private war. Of course I have been in close touch with university principals. I am sure that there is no university principal or headmaster of any school or further education institution who welcomes the fact that he is to get less money to spend next year. Who would? If I may say so, it is an absurd question.
My second general point is that, even if Opposition Members were to accept the need for a reduction in university expenditure, I should have thought that, on mature reflection, they would agree that it is right that the pattern of that reduction and the advice given to the universities should be decided not by the Government but by the UGC, which is used to apportioning funds between universities.

Mr. Robert Hughes: rose—

Mr. Younger: Surely I should have the opportunity to develop my argument.

Mr. Hughes: I thank the Secretary of State for giving way. He knows that the UGC has not explained to any of the universities the reasons why they have been treated in a particular way. Despite all the recommendations that have been made the information is still not available. The UGC has told me that it will not make the information public and that it will not answer my queries about what is happening. Will the right hon. Gentleman bring pressure to bear on the UGC to have a public debate about the secret way in which it has made the cuts?

Mr. Younger: That is not a matter for me, in any case. Of course, my right hon. Friend will note what the hon. Gentleman says in that regard.

Mr. Norman Buchan: He is not here.

Mr. Younger: I ask all right hon. and hon. Members to recognise, as I think the right hon. Member for Craigton did, that the UGC is only doing its job in implementing something for which the Government decided the basic pattern. It is therefore wholly appropriate to pay tribute to the UGC for the way in which it has tackled an exceedingly difficult job. It is right that I should say that.
I want to make two comments about the university system in Scotland. The first is that, as a simple matter of fact, Scottish universities have fared slightly better than their counterparts in England and Wales in terms of both money and student numbers. The second is that the UGC has specifically recognised two particular features of the Scottish system—the four-year course, and the special circumstances of those Scottish universities that have a larger than average proportion of home-based students. I am therefore satisfied that it would be wrong for any right hon. or hon. Member, in Scotland at any rate, to say that Scotland has been treated worse than any other part of Britain. Indeed, it has been treated slightly better. I emphasise, too, that both the Government and the UGC are doing everything that they can, in an admittedly difficult situation, to make a sensitive and flexible response to a difficult developing situation.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science and the Under-Secretary have been deeply concerned about the Scottish aspects of these changes. Both have met the Scottish principals, and that

has helped particularly my responsibilities for health in Scotland. As I announced last December, I have been able to recognise the heavy demands that the Health Service in Scotland makes on the universities, and I have made special provision to allow the replacement in NHS establishments in Scotland of any posts which universities were obliged to cut which were essential to the maintenance of patient care or the output of trained specialists essential to the Health Service.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science has shown his flexibility by being willing to agree to a redundancy compensation scheme for academic staff, which is very similar to that proposed by the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals, and which generously recognises that significant numbers of them have academic tenure to take into account. This has been of significant help to the universities in their task of managing this difficult process of contraction.
The UGC is also sensitive to the continuing needs of the university system in Scotland. I have discussed the situation with the chairman of the UGC, and I much appreciate the significant amount of time that he personally has given to meetings with the Scottish principals. Although the financial situation leaves it relatively little flexibility, the committee has made certain responses which are worth recording. First, it told Aberdeen that it is sympathetic to the university's desire to develop further its work in engineering, and decided that, if the university were to succeed in obtaining adequate external funding for an additional chair, the committee would consider providing a degree of supporting funding.
Secondly, it has continued the funding of Edinburgh's work as one of only two specially selected centres in the United Kingdom on the application of microprocessors in science and engineering subjects. Heriot-Watt has also been chosen by the Department of Industry as a centre for the work of its microprocessor applications project.
Thirdly, the UGC is planning an element of special support for biotechnology in its grant allocations for 1982–83 at a limited number of universities. I am confident that the undoubted expertise that exists in Scottish universities in biotechnology will ensure that they will attract a healthy proportion of the special funds available, and enable them to sustain and further develop their capability in this important area.

Mr. Dennis Canavan: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Younger: No.

Mr. Canavan: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must resume his seat if the Minister does not give way.

Mr. Younger: I have such respect for my own Member of Parliament, the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan), that I want to protect him from making his usual intervention, because it usually rebounds on himself. It is in his own best interests if I let him off.
Finally, on the universities, I want to emphasise the significance of the broad thrust of the UGC's strategy and how important this is for the economy. The expansion of the university system was planned on the assumption that it could be sustained by continued growth in the economy, and over several years that just has not happened. This


meant that when the expansion had to stop we were left with some institutions and departments within institutions that could no longer hope to reach the size originally planned. Some departments were, therefore, too small ever to become efficient or educationally fully effective.
In making its allocation within the new level of funding proposed for the system the UGC had to take account of this effect, amongst others, in considering how best to achieve the following four aims: first, to ensure the maintenance of a full range of subjects throughout the university system and to protect scholarships generally; secondly, to bring about a significant shift of emphasis in the system towards technology and those aspects of science central to our economic—

Mr. Canavan: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Cananvan: On a technology point—

Mr. Younger: —and industrial future from the point of view of our need both for research and for trained manpower; thirdly, to preserve the vitality of the system and its ability to respond to new needs and challenges; and, lastly, to ensure the continued viability of institutions themselves.
Given the broad canvas with which the UGC had to deal and the limited time in which it had to work, it is easy for anyone to pick holes in what has been done in detail one way or another, but it is essential to look at the broad strategy, which is what I have tried to do. I am convinced that it is right and that in years to come the breakdown of what has been done in this admittedly difficult matter will prove to have been extraordinarily farsighted.
I come now to that sector of higher education for which I have a more direct responsibility, the central institutions, the colleges of education and the colleges of further education, in which a considerable amount of advanced work is done. These institutions account for 38 per cent. of all students taking full-time or sandwich courses at degree or equivalent level. The number of students enrolling in these courses continues to increase. In 1979 the number was 20, 000. In 1980 it rose by 10 per cent. to 22, 000, and last year it increased by a further 8 per cent. to 24, 000. It says a great deal for the efficiency of the institutions concerned that they contrived to accommodate this considerable influx without a substantial increase in the level of funding. Ten years ago—

Mr. Maxton: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Younger: I shall break off for a moment to explain to the House that if I go on too long and give way to everyone who would like me to give way, no one else will get in. It is a short debate. I had hoped that I would have the support of hon. Members on all sides in trying to confine my speech to a reasonable length. I do not think that it is fair on Back Benchers on either side if I give way.
Ten years ago the student-staff ratio in the central institutions stood at 8:1; today the average stands at 10:1; and in the colleges of technology the ratio is even higher. This represents a very significant achievement in terms of the improved utilisation of resources.
While the Government's expenditure plans allow for the contraction in teacher training to match the declining secondary school population, they will enable grants to the central institutions to be maintained at about the current level, and the provision made for further education

generally in the rate support grant settlement for 1982–83 reflects the emphasis which the Government continue to place on the supply of trained manpower for industry and commerce.
The provision made for the central institutions in 1982–83 allows for expenditure at a level 8 per cent. above that for 1981–82 and 20 per cent. above the level for 1980–81. The RSG settlement for 1982–83 assumes local authority expenditure on further education at a level of 12 per cent. above that for last year. This is a measure of the importance that the Government attach to this sector of education.

Mr. Millan: Are these cash or real figures?

Mr. Younger: They are cash figures. All figures shown are cash. It is cash figures that the rest of the country has to work on. [Interruption.] Except the Labour Party, of course.
This, indeed, is the strength of the so-called public sector of higher education in Scotland, namely that the colleges are engaged in the business of providing vocationally orientated courses which are mounted and constantly adapted to meet the needs of industry, commerce and the professions. Over the years students who have successfully completed these courses have experienced little difficulty in obtaining employment. It is signficant that at the end of 1980, for instance, of those who had graduated in the summer and whose destination was known, only 8·3 per cent. had failed to obtain employment. To put it another way, over 91 per cent. obtained employment.
The introduction of new courses at advanced level in the central institutions and the other colleges is subject to approval by my Department. The criteria for approval includes evidence of a demand for the course from both employers and students which is not being satisfied by courses already available. This mechanism of control provides a useful safeguard against the proliferation of courses and the waste of resources and helps to ensure that students who successfully complete the course have a reasonable prospect of securing employment. Within the total resources available to the central institutions, my Department is seeking to give priority to those areas which are of key importance to our economic recovery, such as electronics and electrical engineering, computer science and industrial design.
The consultative paper on electronics manpower which was issued by the Scottish Office in June of last year has been well received by industry and by the universities and colleges. Expansion in the output of both graduates and qualified technicians in this field has a high priority; and it is encouraging that enrolments in both BSc and HND courses in the central institutions and colleges of further education are steadily rising.
Listening to the doom-laden speeches of Labour Members, one would gather that everywhere in higher education the shutters were going up and the lights were going out. I have no time to catalogue all the innovative and exciting work being undertaken. I shall mention only a few examples: the microelectronics education development centre located at Paisley college of technology, which since its inception in 1980 has provided over 50 courses attended by participants from well over 100 educational, industrial and commercial organisations; the postgraduate courses in offshore technology which have


been provided by Robert Gordon's in Aberdeen in support of the oil industry and the offshore survival unit in the same college, which in 1980–81 provided training for over 7, 000 in the industry; the emergence of the Scottish college of textiles at Galashiels as a major centre of textiles technology in this country; the beginnings of work on robotics at Dundee college of technology; work pioneered by Leith nautical college in the handling of hazardous cargo; the introducton at Napier college of a new course in energy engineering and of a distinctive diploma course in European languages and marketing; and the planning—now at an advanced stage—of a new building for the Royal Scottish academy of music and drama, which will further enhance the facilities available in Glasgow for the enjoyment and promotion of the arts.
If that is a catalogue of a system in total decay and disaster it is a distortion of the whole picture. I hope that Opposition right hon. and hon. Members will remember that there are people working and studying in these institutions who do not require to have the situation unnecessarily made seem worse than it is.
The painful process of contraction in the colleges of education that I announced in August 1980 has in large measure been achieved. My answer to the question put by the right hon. Member for Craigton in his opening remarks is that no one can ever give a guarantee for ever more about any institution, but we have no plans for any further closures of colleges of education. The contraction process was not an end in itself, but part of the necessary process of enabling the colleges to come to terms with new developments in curriculum, assessment techniques and school organisation and to try to improve the quality of the teaching force even though the number of schools has to decline with the fall in the number of pupils.
One recent development has been approval of a new secondary teaching qualification in computing; at the same time arrangements are being made for an expanded programme of in-service training courses in computing to complement the rapidly spreading use of micro-computers in schools. In-service training is of increasing importance in a time of rapid technological change, and for this reason the level of funding of the colleges for in-service courses has been maintained at the level set in 1977.
These are all developments which dispel the notion that higher education in Scotland is suffering from some sort of paralysis. That these developments—and many others—are going ahead even though it is a time of financial stringency bears out my contention about the underlying strength of the system.
Both sectors of higher education—the universities and the colleges—have their own distinctive contribution to make. It remains Government policy that the role of the non-university institutions in higher education should be complementary to that of the universities and that the advanced courses they provide should have a strong vocational bias, with an increasing emphasis on meeting the demand for skilled manpower in industry and commerce.
I referred briefly to the machinery which exists to secure effective co-ordination in the provision of courses in the non-university sector. I am glad to say that more recently we have been able to institute informal arrangements for the exchange of information about prospective academic developments with the eight

Scottish universities. There are, of course, difficulties in long-term planning in this, as in any field, and there is no suggestion at this stage of dovetailing the provision to be made in the university and non-university sectors. But there are obvious benefits to be gained from the pooling of information, not least at a time when resources are tight, and we have taken the first tentative steps towards achieving closer co-operation at national level.
There are already very useful links at local level between individual institutions, of course. These take a variety of forms. Co-operation between a university and a neighbouring institution may extend to the establishment of joint departments. An example of this is the link in respect of degree courses in architecture and town planning between the Heriot-Watt university and the Edinburgh college of art. The degree courses provided in some colleges are validated by a neighbouring university. There are also courses provided in a university to which a non-university institution makes its own contribution.
That kind of co-operation is illustrated by the institution of degree courses at Stirling university with a substantial input by Falkirk college of technology. I welcome this kind of collaboration and I am sure that it will increase as institutions recognise the importance of using to the best advantage the resources available to higher education in Scotland. My Department will continue to promote the exchange of information at national level which will facilitate that sort of collaboration.
The motion
calls for access to higher education to be made available at an adequate level of students' grants".

Mr. Millan: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will deal with that matter. He is responsible for it.

Mr. Younger: I am on the point of dealing with it. I am happy to be able to satisfy the right hon. Gentleman on one thing, if on nothing else.
The right hon. Gentleman has criticised the Government for increasing the maximum rates of students' awards by no more than 4 per cent. for 1982–83 and for not raising the threshold for parental contributions in line with inflation. I entirely agree that it is desirable to try to increase the level of support for students by the maximum amount every year—at least by as much as inflation—if one can possibly do so. Of course, we wish to try to help students in every possible way.
On the 4 per cent. increase, the plain fact is that we must tailor our expenditure to what the country can afford. At a time when many people in industry will receive no rise in earnings, and when, indeed, many will have a reduction in earnings, an increase of 4 per cent. is not an unreasonable figure for students to be offered. We cannot exempt students from the essential restraints that everyone else is having to put up with in expenditure generally, both in the private sector and in the rest of the public sector.
If it had been possible to uprate awards by more than 4 per cent. we would of course have done so, but we must be even-handed in our treatment of a wide variety of different groups of people when we are considering how far our limited means can stretch. It is a luxury open only to an Opposition who do not expect to hold responsibility to look at needs without any regard to the resources to meet them.
We are asking wage and salary earners in the public sector to accept pay rises that can be accommodated within cash limits of 4 per cent. This applies to teachers,


university lecturers, civil servants and various other groups. Therefore, it seems to me not at all unreasonable that students, who are in the same part of the public sector as all those people, should be treated similarly.
Incidentally, no other country in the EEC supports its students as generously as we do. If the right hon. Gentleman looks at the practice in all our neighbouring countries, he will find that most which offer support have at least an element of loan financing in their arrangements. In those countries where grants are available they are almost always lower than in Great Britain and are certainly subject to much more stringent means-testing than in this country.
I return to the immediate question of the rates for 1982–83. The right hon. Gentleman was right to say that we had decided not to uprate parental contribution scales. It is true that, as he said, some students will receive less in cash in 1982–83 than they are receiving in 1981–82. This will be the case where their parents have been fortunate enough to enjoy an increase in their income in the previous year. But let us put this change into a reasonable perspective. Any parent on average earnings and with a modest mortgage equivalent to one year's salary will still be below the parental contribution threshold. In other words, his son or daughter will receive maximum grant.
Let us take what most people will describe as a comfortable level of earnings—about twice the national average, which is perhaps more like the amount earned by the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire. I am not aware whether the hon. Gentleman has a mortgage; I would not pry into that. I have an idea that he probably has a nicely allocated council house which he lives in and enjoys. We at least know that the hon. Gentleman earns a salary of £13, 950 for all the excellent contributions that he makes in the House.

Mr. David Lambie: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. He has dealt with the parental contribution of a person on average earnings who is paying a mortgage. Will he deal with the discrimination against the person who is on average earnings and is paying rent? That person is discriminated against because he receives none of the concessions towards paying the rent that the mortgage payer receives towards paying his mortgage.

Mr. Younger: Such a person may not receive those concessions but he is fortunate in that there is great assistance from the public purse in the payment of the rent.
I was speaking of the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire earning £13, 950, as other Members of Parliament do, and I was assuming a mortgage of one year's salary, which does not apply to the hon. Gentleman. The parental contribution and the grant will be roughly in balance at about £800 each for a student living away from home. In other words, we ask parents to contribute towards maintenance pound for pound along with the taxpayer. That does not seem to me to be too much to ask of people at that level of earnings to back a lifetime investment in their child's future.
In addition, in recent years there has been a rise in the proportion of students receiving maximum awards, from just over 30 per cent. in 1978–79 to about 40 per cent. now. This rise tends to show that previous increases in the parental contribution scale may have over-compensated for rises in income, thus bringing more people into

eligibility for maximum awards. It is therefore reasonable to stabilise the situation by not increasing the threshold for next year.

Mr. Millan: All this is very interesting, but I asked the right hon. Gentleman a simple question, and he or his Department must know the answer. What is the average grant for 1981–82 and what will be the average grant for 1982–83? Does it show an increase or a decrease?

Mr. Younger: The right hon. Gentleman has asked a detailed question. I shall try to give him facts and figures, or ask my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary to do so. The right hon. Gentleman made a point about the total awards expenditure. In the comparison that he took from the public expenditure survey, he overlooked the fact that tuition fees are being halved with effect from 1982–1983, which invalidates making a direct comparison. We expect about 60, 000 awards to be made in the current academic year, at a cost of about £125 million, and we expect similar expenditure next year. In any event, we shall certainly continue to pay grants on a mandatory basis to all eligible students who obtain places in higher education. That is surely the assurance that the right hon. Gentleman wants.

Mr. Millan: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer my question? A calculation must have been made, before the public expenditure White Paper was published, of the number of grants next year and the average grant compared with 1981–82 in cash terms. Why will he not answer that?

Mr. Younger: I shall try to express that in the precise form asked for by the right hon. Member for Craigton and will ask the Under-Secretary to deal with it when he replies. The basic figures are approximately 60, 000 people and a total expenditure of £125 million, and we expect something similar next year. In any event, we shall be paying grants to all those who qualify for them.

Mr. Millan: rose—

Mr. Younger: I must press on. The right hon. Gentleman is pushing the patience of the House a bit far. I have already spoken for far too long, because of constant interruptions. [Interruption.] Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will pause for a moment from making his speech from a sedentary position. It is not fair to the House to make it impossible for a speech to take a reasonable length, and I hope that he will forgive me if I have spoken for longer than I intended.
The Opposition chose the subject for debate and the right hon. Member for Craigton looked at only one side of the picture. He considered what he would like done in a perfect world if education were allowed to fulfil every need that anyone could envisage for it. He paid no attention to the requirement that money should be available to do the job, and therefore his case is wholly irresponsible.
Of course we recognise that asking universities to make economies creates many difficulties for them and puts pressure on people who must, therefore, re-order their priorities. However, everyone in Britain has to accept that when the national economy is going through an extremely difficult period. The proposition, if it is one, that the Opposition have been trying to put forward today seems to be that, although everyone else has to tailor his coat according to his cloth, at a time of great difficulty universities alone should be exempted from that policy. I


am certain that that is not the view of those in universities. They have all taken a perfectly responsible view of the difficult task that we are putting on them.
Scotland's higher education system is having to save some money, but it is a strong, innovative and well-run system, and it can still claim to have some of the highest standards in the world. The motion is wholly unjustified and out of touch with reality, and therefore I ask the House to reject it.

Dr. J. Dickson Mabon: I am extremely flattered to be called to speak so early in this debate. I deeply deplore the fact that, in a short debate of this sort, more than an hour—almost an hour and a quarter—has been taken by the two Front Benches. This is not a private debate between two right hon. Members; it is a public debate. Therefore, I hope that many hon. Members will participate in it.
The Secretary of State was unreasonable in not addressing himself to the phrase "re-order priorities" in the amendment. My criticism is that, if there must be economies, there should not necessarily be exemptions. Mendes-France said:
To govern is to choose.
It might conceivably be argued, as it was today, that there should be total exemption for universities and university students from any of the Government's necessary economies. On the other hand, the Government must justify many of the economies. The first charge against them is that they have not re-ordered their priorities. If they have, they have not explained them to anybody.
The Secretary of State made a gallant attempt today to give us a catalogue of what I accept are recent remarkable achievements in Scottish education. We are progressing in new technology and activities which are natural to the development of our economy—at least on oil and gas development. I accept that the right hon. Gentleman's remarks were fair. However, it is not fair to say that every principal of every university in Scotland knows why economies have been thrust on their particular university and why these priorities have been chosen.
The Secretary of State put some gloss—I could use a stronger word—on the difference in priorities. For example, he mentioned the concern of many people—the effect of university economies on the working of the National Health Service. However, he has said only that special help will be given. Will it be given on the Scottish Office Vote? How much will be given? Why are priorities given to some areas rather than to others? I have received reports from colleagues in the medical profession stating that they are not being properly treated. The criticism still stands that the university cuts and the cuts in colleges of higher education, which will affect ancillaries in medical activities, have not been properly explained.
Another charge must be levelled not against the principals but against the Secretary of State. Almost all hon. Members met the principals in Committee upstairs at the beginning of this exercise. In a rather helpless way, the principals asked us, as Members of Parliament, to help them, through the UGC, to change the cuts. What did they ask us to do? Did they ask us to change the volume of the cuts? It is clearly the Government's prerogative to decide the volume of the cuts. I listened to the criticisms made

not only by Opposition Members, but by Conservative Members. I presumed that the principals were appealing to us to obtain, by individual representation, the general figure of cuts reduced. Working in a synergistic way with that is, of course, the argument that specific universities and colleges of higher education have a case for additional assistance because of their present situation.
The Secretary of State told us—I cannot support his amendment and would be surprised if Opposition Members and, indeed, some Conservative Members could support it—that the Government have re-ordered their priorities to ensure a high standard of provision. I have not seen much of that. I support the Opposition motion while I admit it is rather one-sided. However, it is the Secretary of State's duty to defend his amendment and, in my submission, he did not do that.
The Secretary of State gave Aberdeen university as an example of where a special plea had been made on engineering. He, or the UGC, was prepared—I am never sure which is Dr. Jekyll and which is Mr. Hyde—to assist the engineering faculty, and I presume to try to attract a new chair to that university, if assistance could be found from outside. He, or the UGC, would then consider special assistance. Is that on a pound-for-pound basis? To whom is the Secretary of State addressing his remarks in private industry? That is a perfectly reasonable point to make. We have listened for more than 40 minutes to the Secretary of State, yet we are still denied much of the information that we need to make a proper assessment of the amendment and the motion.
Perhaps I do not criticise the Secretary of State with sufficient vigour. On this occasion I do, because, for a long speech, it was a bad speech. Even more embarrassing to us in this short debate is that we must have two Front Bench speeches at the end—certainly one from the Government to answer the questions that Back Benchers have asked. I specifically raise the question of Aberdeen university because I have little doubt that it reflects the postitions of other universities. The Secretary of State mentioned Edinburgh, Heriot-Watt and other universities seeking outside private assistance to match what the public provision cannot make. It is in that sense that I criticise the Government's amendment and why I cannot see my way to support it. As for the comments about university students, I can perhaps set an example to the House—

The Under Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. William Waldegrave): For those of us who have tried to understand SDP policy on these matters—this is a little difficult because its spokesmen are at sixes and sevens—does he favour the UGC making decisions autonomously, or does he favour political direction?

Dr. Mabon: I am absolutely against political direction. One needs to distinguish between direction politically in a qualitative sense, which is academically unacceptable, and in a quantitative sense, which is what the Government are doing. There should be no diktat from on high from any Government to the UGC over what the budget should be. There needs to be a two-way traffic. The UGC has to try to argue its case item by item until the sum is known, and not start the other way round.

Mr. Waldegrave: The right hon. Gentleman's response enables me to explain to the alliance in my constituency that the line it takes does not accord with that of its leaders. I should, however, be glad if the right hon.


Gentleman would confirm the words of the spokesman, I believe, for the alliance who stated recently that no one is seriously contemplating a restoration of the cuts. Is that the policy of the SDP?

Dr. Mabon: Of course, in the short term, the fact is—

Mr. Foulkes: The right hon. Gentleman has his Whip behind him.

Dr. Mabon: It is better than scorpions behind the hon. Gentleman.
We oppose the cuts. We support further consultations with the UGC. We would like to know how private industry can be involved.

Mr. Foulkes: Oh!

Dr. Mabon: Why "Oh!"? It is perfectly right to argue these things again. If we are not arguing them again, what is the purpose of the debate? We could send a postcard to the House saying "Yes" or "No". The purpose of the debate—[Interruption.] Some hon. Members apparently cannot even send postcards. The purpose of the debate, I thought, was to try to convince the Government to change their mind. That is what I am suggesting.
I turn now to student grants. I benefited by the revolution at the end of the last war. I would not have benefited had it not been for the Bevin scheme of 1944. That scheme brought to universities many working class children who would otherwise never have dreamed of going to university. [Interruption.] I cannot hear the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) because he shouts too loudly. The scheme has been consolidated and evolved by both Governments of the old parties. But we are close to a position of bifurcation.
The Conservatives are seriously flirting with loans and a means test of quite hard nature. The difference in policies between the two parties has hardened in the last three years. On the Tory side, the hardening is towards loans and strictures on parents despite the Secretary of State's arguments about the £13, 000 a year man. Most people in the country do not earn £13, 000 a year. Many working class families, especially those containing more than one student, face a burden. To that end the Government should be opposed.

Mr. Dennis Canavan: I should like, first, to congratulate my right hon. and hon. Friends on their choice of higher education in Scotland as the subject for debate. Nothing could be dearer to the hearts of many people in Scotland and nothing more relevant to the needs of Scotland. Sadly, nothing could more readily demonstrate the failure of the Government's policies. In higher education, as in other sectors of education, the Government have lurched from one crisis to another. Last summer there was the announcement of a cut of 20, 000 in the number of student places in higher education throughout the United Kingdom. A letter from the University Grants Committee at the time referred to a cut of 1, 730 university places in Scotland, but the real figure, taking a different base line, is twice as much. Account has also to be taken of the cuts in the number of places in colleges of education and higher education.
Some of the worst effects of the cuts, despite what the Secretary of State said about Scotland not coming off too badly, are to be seen in certain institutions in Scotland,

including the University of Stirling in my constituency, not far from where the Secretary of State lives, or used to live. The proposed cut in Stirling is 27 per cent. in student numbers and 23 per cent. in the current grant. By 1984 this will take the university student population down to just over the 2, 000 mark. That is a savage blow for the youngest and smallest university in Scotland. It is the only university in Scotland to have been created out of nothing as a result of the Robbins report in the 1960s.
Because of the critical situation facing the University of Stirling and because, at the time, I was chairman of the Scottish Labour Party parliamentary group, towards the end of last year I led a delegation of Scottish Labour Members to see the Secretary of State for Education and Science shortly after he took over from the previous incumbent who was sacked. The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North (Mr. Fletcher), was also present at the meeting. At first I thought that the hon. Gentleman probably intended to join the team in presenting a strong voice for the Scottish universities. We were concerned not only about the University of Stirling but about other Scottish universities, such as the University of Aberdeen which was, and still is, in a critical situation. It takes some believing, but the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North, who has responsibility for education in Scotland, sat dumb and contributed nothing to the meeting. Instead of being a useful member of the team, he was almost like a passenger. This is perhaps not surprising knowing the hon. Gentleman's record in education.
The hon. Gentleman has been responsible for closing three colleges of education—Hamilton, Callander Park and Craiglockhart. He has copied Ministers in the Department of Education and Science by raising fees for overseas students in Scottish colleges. We now have the ignominious distinction of charging overseas students the highest fees in the world.
The hon. Gentleman's record on student grants also leaves a lot to be desired. They have not kept pace with inflation. Even the 4 per cent., well below the current rate of inflation, is not a real figure. Many students will receive less in cash terms in the coming session compared with the current session. The Government are stopping grants for students who, for some reason or another, have to repeat courses. Those students may have been ill or experienced learning difficulties. They may simply wish to transfer from one course to another. We should always try to make our system of education as flexible as ever.
The hon. Gentleman has imposed a quota on many of the postgraduate courses—not only teaching courses, but others such as librarianship, social work and training for the ministry. Many of those students or potential students will be deprived of grants not only in the current session but in forthcoming sessions unless there is a change of policy.
The hon. Gentleman has also attacked students by withdrawing or threatening to withdraw or reduce their travel expenses. It would be helpful to hear his comments on that matter when he replies. The hon. Gentleman has given no justification—certainly no educational justification—for it. Nor does there appear to be any economic justification.
The hon. Gentleman asks how the Opposition believe that money can be found for all the improvements that we wish to see brought about. For a start, the Government


could cancel Trident. That would save at least £7·5 billion. One could imagine the benefit of such an injection into the higher education system.
Many of the supposed cuts are false economy. I wonder what will be the net saving in some instances. The figure of £50 million was, I believe, announced not long ago by the Department of Education and Science for restructuring, including the paying of pensions and additional redundancy payments to lecturers. What is the sense in spending £50 million of public money to throw educated men and women on to the dole queues when they could be teaching youngsters who are clamouring to get into universities and colleges? If we are talking about economic recovery, we must bear in mind that the courses that are essential to train the people who are necessary for our economic recovery are the ones that will be cut and hit worst of all.
I refer the Secretary of State to the Conservative Party manifesto, which returned all the Ministers and all their faithful Back-Bench supporters at the General Election. That stated:
Much of our higher education in Britain has a world-wide reputation for its quality. We shall seek to ensure that its excellence is maintained. We are aware of the special problems associated with the need to increase the number of high-quality entrants to the engineering professions.
I do not know whether the Secretary of State is living in cloud-cuckoo-land. He was afraid to give way to me during his speech, but I can read to him the statistics of the number of science and engineering places that have been cut between the academic years 1980·81 and 1983·84. In Scotland as a whole, the total reduction is 1, 016 places, including 360 at Stirling university and 238 at Strathclyde university.
Where is the economic, educational or any justification for cutting off the supply of the life blood of future industry, especially engineering, which is so necessary for our economic revival? The sad truth is that, even when the economic revival comes—we shall require a change of Government before it comes—we shall be short of the trained, educated and skilled personnel who are so necessary to take full advantage of that economic recovery. I refer especially to science, engineering and technology.
What is the alternative, because it is clear that the Government's policy has been discredited? We have heard the SDP alternative. I remind the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Mabon)—although I do not know for how long he will remain that—of a quotation from The Times Higher Education Supplement of 12 March 1982:
A Social Democratic Liberal government would re-examine the Robbins principle but would be unable to restore all the cuts in higher education, Mr. Tom McNally, the SDP education spokesman, said this week.
Perhaps that should not surprise us too much, because not long ago we saw Roy Jenkins, the carpetbagger himself, who is trying to use the people of Hillhead as a stepping stone back to Parliament, coming up to Scotland, where 97 per cent. of the children are in public sector education, and proclaiming in Hillhead the merits of private sector, fee-paying schools.
When the right hon. Member for Crosby (Mrs. Williams) was Secretary of State for Education and Science, her record was arguably worse than that of the

present Prime Minister. The right hon. Member for Crosby was the first holder of that post to preside over a reduction in real terms in the total budget for education and science. She was responsible for closing down more colleges of education than any Secretary of State before or since. She was responsible for engineering a confrontation with one of the most moderate of trade unions, which made the most modest of wage claims—the Association of University Teachers—and she was also responsible for accelerating the disgraceful trend whereby we now have the ignominious distinction of charging our overseas students the highest fees in the world.

Mr. Younger: Why did the hon. Gentleman support the right hon. Member for Crosby (Mrs. Williams)?

Mr. Albert McQuarrie: rose—

Mr. Canavan: I am sorry, but the boss of the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. McQuarrie) managed to get in first with a fairly weak intervention. He asked why I supported the right hon. Member for Crosby. The answer is that I did not. If he examines the records of the previous Parliament, he will find that I consistently voted for Socialist policies on education and everything else, compared with the right hon. Member for Crosby who, even then, was betraying the Labour Party manifesto and the Socialist commitments that we made to the electorate.

Mr. Henderson: rose—

Mr. Canavan: I have already given way to No. 1 and picked him off, so I do not wish to embarrass the hon. Member for Fife, East (Mr. Henderson).

Mr. McQuarrie: rose—

Mr. Canavan: I shall give way to the Buchan bulldog.

Mr. McQuarrie: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I accept that the hon. Gentleman opposed the right hon. Member for Crosby when she was Secretary of State for Education and Science. However, it must be clear, because she is now a member not of the Labour Party but of the SDP, that she cannot get away from the mistakes that she made then. The Times of 23 August 1978 stated:
In November 1976, Mrs. Shirley Williams, who by then had taken over as Secretary of State, announced that local authorities would be asked to reduce their total overseas enrolments to the September 1975 figure.
That was but one of the many catastrophic decisions that she made as Secretary of State for Education and Science in the Labour Government.

Mr. Maxton: That is the hon. Gentleman's speech.

Mr. Canavan: If the right hon. Member for Crosby, when she was Secretary of State for Education and Science, had stood by the commitments in the Labour Party manifesto on education, she would not be in such a terrible mess, which must be embarrassing to her as well as to others in the SDP.
What we wish as a real alternative is not just a full reversal of the cuts in education, and especially higher education. Neither do we wish only to return to the Robbins principle. We must try to extend the Robbins principle in order to make post-school education open to all who can benefit from it.
Despite what may be said in history about the 1964–70 Labour Government, one of their finest achievements was


the initiation of the Open University. We should try to make every university an open university so that any student who can benefit from and wishes to enter university is guaranteed a place. Instead, we have the reverse. The Secretary of State for Education and Science and his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland are closing the door instead of opening it to thousands of well-qualified youngsters who will be thrown on the scrap heap of the dole queue.
I wish to read an extract from a letter that I received recently from the Chairman of the MacRobert Arts Centre committee at Stirling university. He states:
In early September we had arranged to celebrate the tenth anniversary of our founding. If this takes place it could be the event of the year most heavily tinged with irony. For the centre was opened by the man who became the first Chairman of our Advisory Committee and Chairman of our Appeal Fund, namely Viscount Younger of Leckie.
For the benefit of those who do not know, that is the Secretary of State for Scotland's father. The chairman went on:
It is sad that the good deeds of the father should be so soon erased by the doctrinaire obscurantism of the son. But we must remember that this Government was elected to be pragmatic and flexible!"

We have a Secretary of State for Scotland who is about as flexible as Genghis Khan. He and his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science are behaving like uncivilised, barbaric savages, tearing apart every vestige of education and culture in this country.
That is why the sooner we get rid of them, the better, so that we can replace them with a Labour Government committed to repairing the damage that has been done, to giving a higher priority to education and to creating a system whereby education, including higher education, is a right for all rather than just a privilege for the few.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I listened to the speech of the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan) with much enjoyment, but he cannot be called a master of understatement. Indeed, there was at least one serious mis-statement in his speech. He said that Craiglockhart had been closed. In fact, it is still on the site—it may have been merged—and it is still operating strongly. I very much welcome that fact, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman does.
The hon. Gentleman also referred to the Robbins report. After the publication of that report there was an enormous expansion in the number of university students. If one excludes teacher training places and places for those over 21, in the first two years of this Government's term of office there were more places in higher education than the Robbins report predicted. That is in the context of a complete failure of the economy to expand, as Robbins predicted, in order to sustain this growth.
It would be very nice if the universities were completely immune from plans to restrict public expenditure, but the harsh reality is that virtually no organisations or institutions are immune in the battle against inflation. Indeed, with hyper-inflation they would suffer as much as everyone else.
I welcome the fact that, in a recent letter, the Secretary of State for Education and Science made available an additional £50 million this year to help with the restructuring of the university system. He wrote:
This extra money will be available to help universities adjust to the lower level of funding now proposed, either to help with

the cost of redundancy and premature retirement or possibly, in a few cases, to moderate the rate of rundown at individual institutions to achieve the same result with fewer redundancies over a slightly longer time scale".
It is encouraging that a further amount for restructuring will be made available next year. I hope that it will be a substantial sum. It has made a considerable difference this year and has helped to ease the difficulties of transition.

Mr. Foulkes: I know that the hon. Gentleman is one of the more sympathetic Conservative Members. Is he aware that heads of departments in Scottish universities are harassing some of their junior staff to try to fill other vacancies to achieve the kind of cuts required by the Government? I hope that he will join me in condemning such a practice wherever it exists. Although I wrote to the Secretary of State for Education and Science some weeks ago, I have not yet had the courtesy of a reply.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that point. Edinburgh university has very much welcomed the allocation of this further £50 million, which will ease the transition. I take into account what the hon. Gentleman has said, and I shall speak to the university concerned.
My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science, the hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Waldegrave), has visited some of the Scottish universities, including Edinburgh. I am sure that he exercises a benign influence in these matters. The additional problem for Edinburgh university is the expectation of finding a large sum for the universities superannuation pension scheme for academic and academic-related jobs. The national pension scheme has been the subject of an actuarial investigation, and the employers' contributions must be increased by: 3·8 per cent. That means that the universities will have to find an extra £18 million in total.
In the case of Edinburgh university, an additional £650, 000 a year will have to be found, starting on 1 April 1983. Therefore, this is not an immediate problem, but at present there is no indication where this sum will come from. If it is to be found by the employers and come out of the university budget, that will amount to a further cut.
I ask the Government to look sympathetically at this problem. It is not a key issue for this year, but it will arise next year, and with Britain now coming out of the recession I hope that the matter will be carefully considered.
Overall, the Government's policy must be followed through, as there will be a diminishing need for university places, which will begin to take effect after 1983–84. By the mid-1990s there will be 30 per cent. fewer 18-yearolds compared with the mid-1980s. It would have been preferable if savings in higher education could wait until the size of the relevant age group began to fall, but that ignores the fact that constraints on public expenditure, in the interests of the recovery of our trading and manufacturing base, are needed immediately.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I should like to continue, because many other hon. Members wish to take part in the debate. I look forward to listening to the hon. Gentleman's contribution, because I am sure that he wants to talk about Aberdeen university.
Under the plans of the University Grants Committee, there will be a 5 per cent. reduction in the home and EEC student population by 1984–85 compared with 1979–80. The crux of the matter is that by 1984–85 student places will have fallen to the level that existed under the Labour Government in 1977–78. If the present position, which Labour Members condemn, is so terrible, why did they not condemn the position in 1977–78, because the figures are exactly the same?
In the process of a reduction in the number of places, Scotland and Scottish universities have fared better than the United Kingdom average, and rightly so, taking account of Scottish circumstances. As the Secretary of State said, the numbers are due to fall by 4½ per cent. in Scotland, whereas the planned reduction for Britain as a whole is 5 per cent. In addition, contrary to what the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) said, allowance has been made for the four-year courses at Scottish universities by permitting an additional year to achieve student numbers. That is entirely appropriate.
There is a particularly important aspect to the priorities of the UGC. There will be an expansion in certain key areas and more emphasis on training for practical and vocational work of an extremely important kind. That is only appropriate in a country that gave birth to the inventions of Stevenson and Watt, which made so much difference to United Kingdom industry.
The number of students studying engineering and technology will rise by 2 per cent., mathematics by 3 per cent. and physical sciences by 7 per cent. overall in Britain. There will also be an increase in the number concerned with certain aspects of biological sciences and business studies.

Mr. Harry Ewing: What about Stirling?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I have said that, overall, there will be a substantial increase in Scotland. I very much welcome that. The hon. Gentleman may have a specific claim with regard to Stirling, and I hope that he will pursue that matter. Without question, the overall figures are in favour of these areas of study. I am surprised that Labour Members dispute that. The information that I have is conclusively to that effect.
In this connection, there is a matter relating to Heriot-Watt university about which the Minister responsible for universities can help. That university now has two campuses, one in Edinburgh and one in Riccarton on the west side of the city. There would be an enormous gain if Heriot-Watt could eliminate the costs of twin-site working and be sited entirely at Riccarton. That would release much additional potential, as students and lecturers could work together on research at the same site.
It would also help the Research Park development, where there are acres for research, which industrialists can take, and do so in conjunction with the university. In the context of large-scale industrial development at Sighthill nearby, there is no doubt that the speedy transfer to this site would greatly increase the university's potential. I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will take this matter up with the University Grants Committee. There is a need to transfer the university as quickly as possible in the interests of research and industry in Scotland.

Mr. Maxton: Is the hon. Gentleman prepared to accept the split-site concept at the new St. Andrew's college?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I should need to know a great deal more about that—

Mr. Maxton: Oh!

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I misunderstood the hon. Gentleman. I thought that he was referring to a college in Edinburgh. If he is referring to St. Andrew's university—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—I should have to know more about the subject before giving an answer.
The Secretary of State, through the UGC, is providing specific support in particular areas. At Heriot-Watt, the Department of Industry is giving considerable assistance to a microprocessor applications project. There are other forms of assistance for biotechnology at a number of universities. I hope that the Scottish universities will snap up a large part of the funds, bearing in mind their expertise.
The Government, through the UGC, are providing funds for building progammes in Scotland. The library at Aberdeen university has been extended at a cost of about £1 million. A contribution has been made to Glasgow's Hetherington arts building, as well as a contribution to continuing alterations at Strathclyde, including new library provisions and accommodation for a new computer, starting in 1982–83 at a cost of £1 million.

Mr. Robert Hughes: The hon. Gentleman must be aware that the ancient library at Kings college, which houses one of the best ancient libraries in Scotland, has been closed because of a lack of funds.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for mentioning that. However, £1 million will be spent on it from 1981, and I hope that the work will progress as quickly as possible. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman, as a good constituency Member, will push for the opening of that library as soon as possible.
The shift from the arts and social sciences to engineering and technology will stand Scotland in good stead. Giving greater emphasis to practical and vocational courses, rather than those that are entirely contemplative, and concentrating on providing the best relevant education possible will help secure jobs for the future.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: There is no doubt that the Government's policy on higher education is alien to Scottish tradition. From its beginning the Scottish nation has been interested in education, and I have always been proud of the fact that my country was one of the first to reach out for universal primary education. Moreover, in the Middle Ages Scotland had four universities, whereas England had only two.
The educational spirit of Scotland has always been extremely strong. The Government may feel that they can get away with cutting back on public expenditure and education in England and Wales but they will not do so in Scotland.
The Government's policy on universities is outrageous. It has been made clear by the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) that as a result of the cuts about 3, 800 university places will not be available for students. The Government may choose to laugh that off,


but that means that 3, 800 youngsters will be deprived of the right to attend university and acquire the skills which should be theirs as of right.
I belong to a generation which grew up with the understanding that part of its social contract was freedon of access to universities and centres of higher education, and in the past there was a fight to extend the age at which children remained at school. That was all part of the tradition of extending the heritage of our nation's education and of fitting young people for the life ahead.
I am almost speechless with outrage at the philosophy and barbarism behind the Government's proposals. At the root of it is the fact that Ministers come from a stock or class of people which does not believe in extending education to the lesser orders of society. The Government would not be able to cut away at the feet of the university system and our institutions if they had a basic concept of justice and a grounding in educational philosophy. I should be ashamed to be a member of a Government who operated on the basis of this Government.
The Secretary of State spoke at length about the impact on the universities. In view of the shortage of time I cannot deal with each university, as some other hon. Members have done, in analysing the losses of academic jobs. However, the universities face significant cuts, and they will have difficulty in cutting back in the time scale presented to them. I disagreed with the Scottish principals when they told me that they wanted more time. I felt they should have fought vigorously to defend their universities, staff and students. However, they argued that a longer period would have enabled them to make economies to avoid the problems faced by the Department of Education and Science arising from tenure and from paying out large sums for unnecessary redundancies.
I bring a specific issue concerning Dundee university to the Government's attention. In common with other Tayside Members, I received a letter form the Tayside area committee for hospital medical services. The letter states:
The University is proposing to make compulsory redundancies in Faculty of Medicine, despite the fact that Dundee University Medical School is already one of the most efficient in the country in the use of financial resources.
The Secretary of State specifically stated that the Government had acted to prevent an impact on the National Health Service. However, the letter states that there will be no new money to fund these posts and that the money
will have to come from the existing NHS budget and this will necessarily impair other parts of the Service.
I hope that the Secretary of State will remember that Tayside is in an especially difficult position. It is caught in the share and shape agreements, under which its income is to be restricted to benefit other parts of Scotland. It is a heavy burden that it has to bear. The doctors on the committee say specifically that whereas it is the intention of the DHSS to increase the number of consultants there is a danger that their numbers will fall in Tayside. I hope that the Minister will address himself specifically to that issue when he replies.

Mr. Henderson: rose—

Mr. Wilson: No, I shall not give way. I had better make progress. I hope that the Minister will address himself to the possible decline in the number of consultants in Tayside when he replies, or by letter thereafter.
I am worried that the changes that are being made in the universities will restrict the range of degrees on offer and curtail places because of the pressure on the system. For a period English students with A-level qualifications, which were considered to be superior to their Scottish counterparts, managed to get places in certain Scottish universities over the shoulders of equally qualified Scots with the Scottish higher certificate qualification. I want the Government to give an assurance that in no circumstances will that happen under the restrictions which now operate. I ask the Minister to say when he replies that Scots with Scottish qualifications will get priority of entry to their own universities.
The Minister at the Department of Education and Science who is responsible for the universities must take it into account that Scottish universities occupy a more prominent place in the Scottish education system than English universities occupy within the English system. It seems from the Minister's nod that he has begun to take that fact on board. Scottish universities are functionally different from their English counterparts and include many students who in England might be studying at alternative institutions. Whatever future decisions are taken by the Government, I hope that the different function in Scotland will be recognised and that our education system will not be impaired.
I deplore and condemn the expenditure cuts and I hope that the Opposition spokesman will indicate where the Labour Party stands when he replies. We have been told that the Social Democratic Party would not make good the cuts. The hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock), the shadow Secretary of State for Education and Science, said at a fringe meeting during the 1981 Labour Party conference that a Labour Government would not restore spending in higher education to its pre-cut level. He said that such a proposal was "against all reason". If that is so, why is the Labour Party not saying where it stands on the cuts? It is up to the Labour Party to explain what it has in mind—[Interruption.]—and I shall not listen to the comical chorus from the Labour Back Benches. Earlier in the debate the hilarity and jocularity of Labour Back Benchers was a disgrace in a serious debate.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: I wish to put the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock) in context. They related to restoration department by department and not to global restoration.

Mr. Foulkes: The hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) would do better to get on with his speech and to give up the pomposity.

Mr. Wilson: That was skirted over by the right hon. Member for Craigton when he said that a Labour Government would restore everything. As I understand it, the level of public expenditure on education will not be guaranteed by a Labour Government.

Mr. Norman Hogg: That is not true.

Mr. Wilson: If that is so, we shall hear about it. We shall hear the extenuations and the explanations.

Mr. Foulkes: Let us hear your policy.

Mr. Wilson: We know what happened when the previous Labour Government were in office. Labour Members cannot blame the right hon. Member for Crosby (Mrs. Williams), who was Secretary of State for Education


and Science in that Administration, because she acted with the full agreement and consensus of the Labour Cabinet in following pseudo-Socialist policies which it pretended to adopt and never intended to implement.

Mr. Foulkes: What is your policy?

Mr. Wilson: During the debates on devolution the Scottish universities opposed any devolution or decentralisation of responsibility from the universities to an elected Scottish body. Whether we have a Scottish UGC with all the universities represented on it or whether we do not have a committee but have a direct involvement with an elected Scottish Parliament, the people in the universities will now begin to realise that they made a severe error by placing their faith in an academically independent UGC, because, as has been acknowledged by the Government, the UGC is carrying out the decisions that were taken by the Government.
This is the second successive year in which students have been forced to accept a drop in the real value of their grants. The Secretary of State has said that students cannot be absolved from the other changes that are taking place. However, I would draw one specific matter to his attention. The levels of grant are fairly low. When there are increases in the heavy costs of lighting and heating, and in the hall of residence charges, students find life difficult. We are talking not so much about 4 per cent. on wages but 4 per cent. on benefits. Because of their low level, it is worth the Government looking again at the percentage at which increases are made.
We have discussed and shall discuss again with the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland the repeat grants and specifically the point made by one of my constituents that the higher diploma and HND courses in England are not biased so heavily towards the final year. The way in which the changes are taking place will have a distinct disadvantage for Scotland, but I shall follow the matter through by letter rather than taking up the time of the House.
There was an encouraging paragraph in the letter dated 12 March that I received from the Under-Secretary of State. He said that the Government had not yet taken a decision on transfer grants and that the whole situation was under review. The Government should seriously consider not making the changes that they had in mind. They would have an unfortunate effect on students because of the younger age entry at our universities and other educational institutions. Scottish students are more likely to make changes, so the transfer grants should be allowed to continue.
It seems strange that changes have taken place for diploma students which affect future solicitors. The phasing in has been unfortunate. It would seem to impact heavily on those who wish to enter the legal profession and who come from families that could not easily maintain them during the year of diploma service. I ask the Minister to re-examine the matter. I hope that his hands are not tied.
The intake of colleges of education has been reduced sharply. If one extends the secondary intake percentage basis announced for 1985–86, worrying figures emerge. The percentage intake for Aberdeen would be 55; for Dundee, 35; for Dunfermline, 25; for Jordanhill, 210; for Moray House, 95 and for St. Andrew's, 80. That is a total of 500.
Although the Secretary of State has given an assurance that he does not have in mind further rationalisation or closures, I detected a sotto voce remark as he concluded his statement. He said "at this time". Undoubtedly, the Scottish Education Department will have to consider providing alternative work. If such a small number of secondary students are taken in there will be an effect on the staffing at primary level, because there is sometimes cross-support between them.
I should also like the Government to comment on the fact that the SED now seems to be taking a hawk-like role over grants, entry and so on. The positions seem to have been reversed. That is remarkable. I hope that it is not true. If it is true, I hope that Ministers and the Scottish Education Department will fight for the education system in Scotland, rather than merely trying to influence the Department of Education and Science cuts.
I disagree entirely with the Government's philosophy. We should spend more on higher education and not cut it. In the Library yesterday I came across a book produced by the British Electrical and Allied Manufactures Association which spoke of the challenge from Japan. It states that, in Japan,
Educational standards have improved dramatically since 1960 when it was the norm to leave school at the end of the compulsory period (middle school), at age 15. In 1960, 53·2 per cent. of the labour force had left education after middle school: by 1980 this ratio had dropped to 8·4 per cent. The ratio of high school graduates in the labour force increased from 37·3 per cent. in 1960 to 61·1 per cent. in 1980 and the percentage of those with some form of further or higher education qualification rose from 9·5 per cent. in 1960 to 30·5 per cent. in 1980…
The educational levels of the labour force account in large measure for its high quality.
Japan has invested a lot of money in education in the past, and it is clear that it intends to invest even more to raise educational standards. The Japanese know that the future lies in improved educational facilities to make the people more numerate and capable of taking on board technological changes—moving up the technological ladder. If that is Japan's policy as part of its industrial and economic challenge to the rest of the world, we should learn from it.
Against that background, I ask the Government to reverse their policies.

Mr. Barry Henderson: It is extraordinary to hear the Socialist parties advance, without criticism, the extreme views of the most enthusiastic advocates of the privileged elite in our universities. Thank heavens the Association of University Teachers at St. Andrew's has adopted a more responsible and worthwhile approach, which deserves a great deal more attention.
Let us look at the fundamental basis of the approach of the Labour Party and its friends. What is the great cut in university finance of which we have heard so much today? On the original proposal it is less than 3 per cent. per annum overall in each of three years. Since the original proposal, the Government have announced over £150 million additional aid for the perceived restructuring as a consequence of the reduction. That is the reality.
At present we have restraints on the expenditure of central Government, local government and, far more severely, industry. In the £1, 000 million university budget it is not unreasonable to ask for the restraint proposed.

Mr. Donald Stewart: How does the hon. Gentleman square his view with the example of Glasgow university, where 431 of the teaching staff are to disappear?

Mr. Henderson: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for raising the point. Three different groups are involved. The Government are responsible for setting the total sum given to the university system through the UGC.
The reduction that I have described relates to the cuts in the total funding going through the UGC. How the UGC divides that among individual universities is its business, not the Government's, and how individual universities react to the money made available to them is the responsibility of each university. At the end of the procedure, when one examines the work done by particular faculties in individual universities, it is difficult to identify those responsible for decisions at that level. I accept that there is a quandary there, to which the right hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Stewart) has drawn attention.

Mr. Martin J. O'Neill: rose—

Mr. Henderson: No, I shall not give way. It would not be for the convenience of the House if I continued to give way every two or three minutes. I shall finish my speech and then other hon. Members may make theirs.
The Government are directly responsible for only a tiny proportionate cut in a huge budget. I cannot believe that that of itself is at the heart of the extreme noises made by limited sections of the academic community. The vast majority of people at universities will accept that it is not unreasonable for the university system to accept some of the expenditure constraints that apply to the rest of the public sector.
On the question of how the reduced funding is distributed, I shall not directly attack the UGC. Its job has not been easy. Indeed, I sometimes wonder whether it has been properly equipped for the job. It has never before had to face the type of decision that it has recently been required to make. It may need strengthening to carry out this important managerial role, which it has not had to perform in the past.
It is unfortunate that the debate has been politicised. It is worth pointing out that the chairman and most of the members of the UGC were appointed by the Labour Government. I am not making anything of that. I am not criticising the UGC's overall policy. Opposition Members suggest that the UGC is some kind of poodle of the Government, but it is not. It is independent. It has made its own decisions about the distribution of resources made available to it by Parliament.
The hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) referred to Dundee medical school. I declare an interest inasmuch as my wife worked there for a year researching perinatal deaths. I shall not say too much about her view of the cost-effectiveness of that medical school except that she did not feel that it operated as a sweat shop or that it was impoverished. The implication of what members of the medical school told the hon. Member for Dundee, East and what they have also told me is that for many years there has been a hidden subsidy from the UGC to the Tayside health board and those who benefit from health

services in the area. That is not an appropriate use of moneys provided for UGC purposes. Some attention should be paid to that.
The hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan) referred to the Robbins report. Many of the problems that we now face started in the post-Robbins era. For many universities, it started a growth which was in many ways of great benefit to the community, but which in other ways has led to uncritical expansion of activity without due consideration of how that expansion fits into the work of a university or the work of universities as a whole. The Robbins report, which caused expansion in many universities, hit St. Andrew's university hard, severing the departments of St. Andrew's university which were at Dundee. During the post-Robbins era, St. Andrew's has had to grow to compensate for that.
I mentioned earlier, as a result of the intervention of the right hon. Member for Western Isles, the confusion of responsibility for any particular decision. I have no quarrel with the overall policy of the UGC. Nor do I think that it has been widely challenged within the universities. It has been suggested that there should be some rationalisation of activities and a small shift in emphasis from arts to sciences and that there should be greater regard than before to standards and to cost performance. I do not think that anybody could quarrel with that. It is in relation to the very difficult individual decisions that the UGC has to make that there is the greatest reason for complaint.
I believe that the UGC has failed to recognise certain special characteristics of St. Andrew's. I give three reasons. First, there was the post-Robbins effect of the loss of a number of departments at St. Andrew's university. Secondly, St. Andrew's is a centre of excellence both nationally and internationally, as witnessed by the fact that of all the Scottish universities it is the one at which only half the total student population is Scottish based. In other words, it draws students from a very wide area of the country.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: That is special pleading.

Mr. Henderson: Thirdly, it has very low unit costs. I do not intend to press the specific case for St. Andrew's any further today. The university has made a plea to the UGC to have its case re-examined. It reports that it has received a reply from the UGC which it did not like and has commented at great length on a number of aspects of it, but it has not made the letter available to me before the debate so I am in no position to argue the case further.
The right hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) referred to the problem of grants. I would appreciate help from the Minister on three points.
First, there is some anxiety that English local authorities, which are accustomed to dealing with three-year degree courses, seem to be limiting grants to three years even for students attending Scottish universities. It is important to ensure that they recognise the tradition of the four-year honours degree course in Scotland. I should be grateful if the Minister will confirm that there is no cause for the anxiety that has been expressed to me about that.
Secondly, it has been suggested that the travel grant for students should be averaged out, so that if a student happens to live a long way from the university that will just be bad luck. It may be special pleading for St. Andrew's, which attracts students from great distances because it is


one of the most popular universities in Great Britain, but I believe that it would be unfortunate if the travel grant ceased to fulfil its present function of recognising the costs of travel to and from the university and the student's home at the beginning and end of the term.
The third point is transfer of course, as distinct from a student failing to do his stuff academically and ploughing his examinations which is no one's fault but his own. A student may be in a course in a faculty at a Scottish university where there is a wider range of options than is often available in the English departmental system. Having had a better opportunity to consider matters in detail, the student may decide, perhaps on the advice of his tutors, to follow a different course from that in which he started. In those circumstances it would be unfortunate if it was not recognised in the grant.
The last point about grants is to do with cash limits. I can see the logic of my right hon. Friend's argument that student grants must take account of the cash limit policy being followed generally in the public sector. However, there is one important difference between the likes of a student on the one hand and the Civil Service on the other. We are seeing the reduction of the Civil Service and increasing productivity, and where there is a cash limit on Civil Service wages it enables the Government to pay more in percentage terms to individual civil servants than the actual percentage cash limit. There is not that opportunity for productivity or overtime, or any other ways of increasing earnings, for students. Next year I hope that the student grants will take that into account, even though students can benefit from the social security increases in the summer vacation.
My right hon. Friend made brief references to the report of the Council for Tertiary Education in Scotland, reviewing structure and management. It is perhaps unfortunate that in this debate we have talked so much about money and so little about education. This must be a very important report. One thing that perhaps we should be thinking about tonight, when the role of the Universities Grant Committee has been partly under discussion, is that the report, to paraphrase, suggests that there should be something equivalent to the UGC to work with the tertiary sector.
There has been a great deal of argument about demography and the number of student places available. It is important to recognise that, while there is a difference between the population base of those sections of society from which students principally come and society as a whole, nevertheless there will be by 1990 only a third of the number of people reaching the age of eighteen who reach that age this year. We are seeing a substantial drop in potential student numbers over the years and it would be foolish to continue funding on the basis that we will continue to expand as we have in the past.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I understand that it is hoped to start the winding-up speeches at twenty five to seven, but I hope that hon. Members will realise that the Front Bench took a long time in a short debate. I shall do my best to help hon. Members if they are brief.

Mr. Jim Craigen: The truth of the matter is that Governments are prepared to spend money on what they want to and not to spend it on other things. Clearly, education will rank as a rather low priority during the lifetime of this Government. One thing that emerged from the speech of the Secretary of State was that he is viewing higher education as a book-keeping exercise despite the cost to the Treasury of unemployment. That cost ought to be in the "Guinness Book of Records". We are spending substantial sums on sustaining unemployment at a time when we could be doing more for industry and education.
We cannot shelter entirely behind the falling school rolls, because the drop in the number of school leavers will not have a serious effect until the middle of this decade. Already countries such as the United States, Japan and Sweden are educating about twice the percentage of 18-year-olds in higher education as we are. We cannot afford to cut back when applications for university places have reached an all-time high, yet the Government are proposing a 3 per cent. reduction in the number of places in 1982–83 as against 1981–82.
We ought to consider also the possibilities and potential of adults entering higher education. Why should it be assumed that for all time only school leavers will want to move into higher education? The Open University has shown the clear potential for those in their thirties, forties or fifties who seek higher education.
In Glasgow we have two universities, Strathclyde and Glasgow, which play a significant part in the local economy, not only by the number of people that they employ and the contribution that they indirectly make to the city's economic base, but to the potential that they afford for young people to get a better opening into industrial life. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) said, the recent Graham report on tertiary education shows that there will be no great increase in resources. All that we can expect at the end of the day in the remainder of the tertiary education sector is a reshuffle of the institutional furniture.
While I see the Glasgow college of technology, which happens to be in the Maryhill constituency, as a suitable candidate, along with one or two other major Scottish further education colleges, for central funding, I am sceptical about whether that would increase the role that the college of technology would be able to play. I suspect that the Secretary of State will be able to turn the tap much more effectively when he wants to reduce the level of resources available.
The Secretary of State's statement this afternoon about student grants was unacceptable. He did not explain how the 4 per cent. increase can suffice in the present inflationary situation. I received an answer recently from the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science to the effect that there had been a 10 per cent. reduction in real terms in the amount of the maintenance award to students. That is not a particularly good record for a Government who keep telling us that they have student interests in mind.
The decision that has been taken over the parental contribution will be especially harsh on working-class families. It is the lower-paid families that will be up against the problem. It will not make much difference to


the better-off families. The Government are more or less showing the red light to working-class families who want to send their young people to universities.
There are young people on the youth opportunities programme with ability who ought to be given the chance of taking a university or a higher education course, yet they are having to go on a youth opportunities programme because there is no employment available for them either.
The Government's approach to higher education is blunt and bludgeoning. It is the more cynical because most Cabinet members went to university. The Secretary of State for Scotland went to the same university as the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph). In a recent House of Commons Library brief on higher education the point was made from that impartial source that not since the Geddes axe had the universities experienced such cuts in their financial base. Sixty years later we are experiencing the Joseph chopper.

Mr. Younger: I went to the same university and college as the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn), but that did not do me much good.

Mr. Craigen: The present incumbent at the Scottish Office was not educated in Scotland, but the majority of his Cabinet colleagues had the benefit of a university education, and yet they are seeking to deny many young people that prospect.
There is no evidence that the Government have a clear policy for higher education, other than to put up more obstacles for working-class people.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Russell Johnston.

Mr. Maxton: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I do not usually challege your calling of speakers and I am loth to do so, but you have called three minority spokesmen who represent five Members of the House when 42 hon. Members put their names to the motion. I find that rather tiring, to say the least.

Mr. Speaker: I know that it is frustrating for the hon. Gentleman. I have worked out how many minutes the different parties have taken. Minorities are entitled to be heard as well as the bigger parties. I call Mr. Russell Johnston.

Mr. Foulkes: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I am not prepared to have my selection of hon. Members challenged. I call Mr. Russell Johnston.

Mr. Russell Johnston: I shall not be long. I shall take no more than five minutes, although it is difficult to say anything meaningful in such a short time. Hon. Members have interjected to say that there is not enough time to debate and cross-question. That is what this Chamber is supposed to be good at, and it is regrettable that it cannot exercise that function. We usually end up by making set speeches.

Mr. Foulkes: Why has the right hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. Steel), who was recently elected rector of Edinburgh university, not been able to sit through one minute of the debate to look after the interests of the students at that university?

Mr. Johnston: Because my right hon. Friend is not here.
As many hon. Members have said, the Government case that they want to save money is ill founded. When one examines the cost of redundancies over the next two or three years and balances that against what is to be saved one realises that we are losing.

Mr. Waldegrave: The hon. Gentleman is wrong. The Association of University Teachers estimated redundancy costs of about £100 million and savings in the next couple of years of about £200 million net, and after that about £150 million a year.

Mr. Johnston: I have no time to argue that in detail. The figures have been contested. The chairman of the Stirling university co-ordinating committee, arguing the case for not reducing the numbers to 2, 020 but to 2, 360 said that the additional students would cost only about £435 each a year. The chairman said that he had sent letters of the analysis to the Secretary of State for Education and Science and the Under-Secretary of State, who did not, although asked to do so, provide counter-arguments.

Mr. Waldegrave: We have heard the answer from the SDP. It will be interesting to hear what the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston) says. Is he asking Ministers to intervene in the UGC's distribution?

Mr. Johnston: I think that the Government have a responsibility for the outcome of the UGC's decisions.

Mr. Waldegrave: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston) promised to try to take only five minutes. His time is almost up.

Mr. Johnston: I had a prepared speech, but I gave way because I thought that that was right. The Minister was more interested in scoring political points than in seeking a constructive and effective dialogue.
I have no wish to keep the House long. Aberdeen is the worst hit university. Stirling is badly hit. In Heriot-Watt, courses in Pharmacy and Business organisation which are well subscribed, are to be cut altogether. It is a matter for concern. The hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) said that in other advanced countries expenditure on students is increasing. It is regrettable that in Britain it appears to be decreasing.

Mr. Bill Walker: I am saddened that we have had to rush the end of the debate. I draw attention to the comments about student grants. One of my daughters is at university, and the second one has been accepted. I accept that it is my duty to contribute to both of my children's personal expenses while they are at university. According to the figures mentioned this afternoon, I shall probably be footing half the cost of the previous grant. That is a worthwhile investment in my children. First, I can afford it. Secondly, I hope that lily contribution will make it possible for others who cannot afford it to go to university.
May we have an assurance that any youngsters of high calibre and with above average examination results will ' not be excluded from university simply because they come from humble homes? I look for a firm commitment on that. I should contribute even more if I thought that that would make it possible for others to attend university. I was not fortunate enough to attend university, but I should like as many capable people as possible to get there.
We must question whether we are making the best possible use of existing facilities and resources in Scotland. Are we catering for the nation's future needs in higher education in a way that will be helpful in the future? Will the changes and the financial constrictions create the permanent damage that some people allege?
If one removes 4½ per cent. from 100 per cent. one is left with 95½ per cent. That does not seem to decimate anything. If by removing the 4½ per cent. one ensures that others can benefit, I approve. It is unrealistic for individuals engaged in higher education to expect that nothing will change, that whatever is happening in the outside world will not affect them and that they will be insulated. That is not realistic and the House should not expect it to continue in that way.
No one can deny that there is always scope for improvement in efficiency and performance in any organisation. Higher education is no exception. Colleges of education and universities in Scotland contain considerable areas where efficiency and organisation could be improved. After decades of constant growth, universities were ready for rationalisation. With fewer pupils in schools, there was a need to reduce the total number of students in teacher training colleges.
Scotland's universities have a proud record and a world-wide reputation. They will rise to the challenge of the times, just as they have done in the past. There are many fine brains available to them. They should be able to make better use than most of what they have available. Those fine brains are never slow to tell everybody else how to improve what they do. I am not being critical. That is one of the functions of our universities. Perhaps they will now turn their great talents and skills to their own use in these difficult times.
In conclusion, I draw attention to the new training initiative. I hope that this will be the beginning of a more realistic and cost-effective academic and vocational integrated training and education scheme—a scheme that will prepare our young people for tomorrow's world. It is a small beginning, but I am not satisfied with it and I suspect that few other hon. Members will be. However, it is a beginning, although a long overdue beginning.
I do not believe that all higher education is concerned only with universities. They are only one part of the higher education sector. Therefore, we should not be too concerned if the universitiies have been called upon to make some realistic changes, provided that—and I qualify this—we are satisfied that we are shifting resources to where the needs are greatest. The shift of funds into the new training initiative and into other areas is the beginning of the kind of change for which we have waited for far too long.

Mr. Robert Hughes: The Government have sought to imply that the Opposition's criticisms of what is happening in universities are extreme or ill founded, or both. Yet, as hon. Members know—especially those from the North-East of Scotland—nothing we have said in the House has not been said either publicly or privately by the principal of the university of Aberdeen. He has said quite plainly that the damage being done to Aberdeen university is severe,

particularly because the cuts have been front-loaded, with 53 per cent. falling in the first year, 27 per cent. in the second year and 20 per cent. in the third year.
In his latest statement, the principal has made it clear that there will have to be severe staffing reductions. He says:
However, it must be emphasised that a reduction in staffing to the levels set out in the Planning Committee report represents a major disruption of the work of the university. The activities of many splendid departments and staff of the highest quality will be seriously damaged with the abandonment of successful careers and the likelihood of much human misery.
That "human misery" refers not just to university staff losing their jobs, but to the effect upon the quality of education given to the students, and, indeed, the feelings of those young people who will not now be able to go to university.
Perhaps the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. Walker) can simply write that off as being of no account. I speak as someone with great regard for our university system, not because I had the opportunity to take part in it, but because of what it has given my children. I bemoan greatly the fact that many young children of the same age as some of my children will not get to university as a result of the cuts.
Ever since we have raised this matter, the Government have hidden behind the UGC. Every time we have raised this with Ministers, they have said, "Let the university take its case to the UGC and see what happens". What has happened? The UGC wrote to Aberdeen university on 23 February explaining, in one curt paragraph, that the conditions of the July letter about the cuts were unchanged, both as regards the financial position and student numbers. That is a disgrace. Even worse, every attempt to get the UGC to explain its position and to explain why it has acted differently towards different universities has been met with a blank refusal to make the information available.
I am sorry if I was churlish towards the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science yesterday during Question Time. I should be grateful if he would do us the courtesy of coming to Aberdeen. However, his visits have not produced any results. There has ben no change and he must be extremely disappointed. Time is short and I shall not speak for long. We are in the process of destroying a university system that has been built up over many years. It is not true that unlimited amounts of money have been poured into our universities over the years. I do not hide behind the fact that in the past four to six years money has been held back and universities have had to make savings. However, given the failure to expand during the past four or five years, this cut is very serious. The Government have made a political decision to cut the UGC's money and it is unfair of them to hide behind that body. They must make more money available. They will reap as they sow and they will reap destruction.
The Government must realise that the parents of many of those waiting to go to university belong to the middle class and are not used—unlike the working class—to having their living standards attacked. They will bring retribution upon the Government and the Government will deserve everything they get. If we fail to educate our people, we fail to invest in the future. That can mean only ruin for the whole country.

Mr. Maxton: rose—

Mr. O'Neill: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Mr. O'Neill.

Mr. Maxton: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate that you cannot call me, but I feel that I must raise a point of order about something said by the Secretary of State. If I had been called I would have raised it in my speech. During his speech—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman should whisper to his hon. Friend the Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire (Mr. O'Neill), who is about to speak. I am sorry, but the hon. Gentleman's point is not a point of order if it is a point of argument with the Secretary of State.

Mr. Maxton: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wish to raise a point of order about the statutes and rights of the House. The House has set up statutory bodies to negotiate salaries. Today, the Secretary of State essentially put aside all those negotiating bodies by saying that certain sections of workers would have to accept a certain pay rise. That raises a constitutional issue about bodies that have been set up by Parliament.

Mr. Speaker: That is a point of argument and not a point of order upon which I can rule.

Mr. Martin J. O'Neill: The Opposition welcome the debate. We wish to ensure that the position of Scottish universities, colleges of education, the central institutions and colleges of further education, which are under local authority control, is defended in the House. The Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary of State have failed not only to do that, but to provide adequate support for the two basic elements in our higher education programme. They have failed to sustain the Robbins principle and to supply adequate levels of student support.
The Secretary of State, in a disgraceful speech, failed to give any satisfactory answers to the questions posed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan). I hope that the Under-Secretary of State will reconsider those questions when he replies to the debate. What is the real value of the increase in average student grant? The so-called 4 per cent. rise will result in more students being on the minimum grant, fewer students being on the maximum grant and less money for those students in the middle. The situation is totally unsatisfactory. The National Union of Students has suggested that an award of 17·4 per cent. would bring student grants up to the 1979 level. The Government cannot get away from that figure. They will betray even their supporters if they do not come near to that figure soon.
Final year students will be genuinely concerned. A recent survey in Glasgow university—I am sure that many of the students who took part in the survey will be casting their votes next week—showed that 75 per cent. of final year students are existing on overdrafts. Scottish students have a four-year university course, so they have to live on inadequate grants for a longer time. Therefore, honours students in their third and fourth years will be under extreme financial pressure. It is a complete betrayal of the principle on which the Mackenzie report was based and on which the grant system has operated since 1962.
On university funding, we must take account of the special nature of Scottish universities. Their special nature

relates not only to their four-year courses. The whole nature of our course structure is different from that south of the border. There is greater flexibility. Scottish institutions have always been proud of their broad study base. Therefore, it is important that departments should be sustained so that they can fulfil not only their degree awarding function but their service function, whereby students have an opportunity to participate in the widest possible range of study during their time at university. The UGC did not take account of that fact in its funding. I-see that the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science agrees with me. This serious criticism has not been adequately met.
We have yet to hear the share of the £50 million that will be made available to Scottish universities for redundancies. We know that the redundancy arrangements do not take adequate account of the members of staff who are under 50 years of age. The Secretary of State praised the UGC for the way in which it carried out the cuts. He spoke about the four criteria that were applied—scholarship, taking due note of technology and making sure that the vitality and viability of institutions were sustained. The UGC has failed on all those counts.
On scholarship, the basis on which the recommended cuts were made was, to say the least, pretty feeble. On technology, it has not taken adequate account of the tremendous contributions made in that respect by many of our universities, such as Stirling and Aberdeen. On vitality, it is all too clear that universities are now incredibly depressed and that the morale among staff and students is at its lowest ebb. On viability, all we can say is that it is a serious matter when a university in the centre of Scotland has to support only 2, 000 to 2, 100 students. I shall not press the matter too strongly here, but Members of Parliament who represent constituencies in the centre of Scotland do not trust the Secretary of State when he says that he will keep open institutions, because he has already closed one college of education.
In further education, the idea that potential applicants will be in a position to transfer from some universities to the Napier college in Edinburgh is ludicrous, I discovered today from Lothian region that the expected number of places available at that college next year for technology courses will be down by about 500 on what was expected in 1980 when it started its expansion programme.
The Labour Party's commitment is clear. It is to sustain the Robbins principle and to ensure adequate support for all those who are qualified to attend. We want to make sure that Scottish universities, colleges of education and technical colleges provide an opportunity for all those who are capable of benefiting from the courses to do so. As my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Craigen) said, it is not simply a matter of looking at the school figures for prospective fifth and sixth years. We have a responsibility to adults who wish to come back to education to improve their qualifications or to be retrained. The Minister has said nothing today that would suggest that that will be possible with the level of funding that is proposed. Therefore, I have no hesitation in asking the House to give its unqualified support to the motion and to defeat the Government amendment, which is a disgrace to Scottish academic life.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Alexander Fletcher): A number of rather wild accusations have been made by Opposition Members about higher education in Scotland—enough to justify this debate. We therefore welcome the opportunity to respond to the many questions that have been asked.
The hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) made a brief speech, in which he said that we were destroying the university system in Britain. That is untrue. My hon. Friend the Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. Walker) gave the correct response to that when he said that there are many important calls on the Exchequer, particularly from young people. He talked about the needs of apprentices and the tremendous public expenditure on the new training initiative. Important as universities are, and important as our students are, they are not underprivileged. They are not among the members of our society today who are least well looked after or cared for by taxpayers and others.
The right hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) asked about the average grant for students. In 1981–82 the figure was £1, 135. That average figure includes students who are on the minimum grant of £410, as I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will appreciate. No precise calculation can be made for the average grant in 1982–83, because it depends on the assessment of parental earnings in as many as 60, 000 cases. However, we estimate at this moment that it will be about the same amount—about £1, 100, the figure for the current year.

Mr. Millan: The Under-Secretary says that it will be about £1, 100. That would not be about the same amount. That would be a reduction. At best he is saying that there will be no increase in student grants next year.

Mr. Fletcher: I made the qualification that it was a rough estimate. It is well in advance of the detailed calculations that are being made. The grant will be about the same as in the current year.
The right hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Mabon) made some exaggerated comments. I was somewhat surprised at him. He claimed that university principals had not been told by the UGC why recommendations for changes had been made. That is untrue. Full consultations took place. It is not good enough to read out one letter from the chairman of the UGC to the principal of a university, when there have been meetings, telephone calls and discussions, not just with the UGC, but with my right hon. and hon. Friends, in particular my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science, who takes a close and personal interest in this matter generally and in Scotland in particular. He has sat through this debate and has heard the criticisms that have been made, so there is no justification for the criticisms that the right hon. Gentleman made.
The right hon. Member also asked about the new engineering chair at Aberdeen. In that case—in Aberdeen, of all places—the UGC is saying "By all means find some private sector support for the project. If you do, not necessarily on a pound-for-pound basis, we will give support to the chair." That is a reasonable point for the UGC to make.

Mr. Foulkes: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Fletcher: I must reply to the debate. There is very little time.
The hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan) raised the question of repeat years. These will not be refused where there are clear medical or compassionate grounds. That has been made clear in the correspondence that I have had with hon. Members, and I am glad to repeat it now. However, the automatic offer of grant for repeat years was over-generous and not necessarily helpful to students or to the universities, because it usually accepted failure or lack of effort far too easily. That cannot be good for the recipients or for the academic institutions. The new policy will be fairer to the students and, of course, to taxpayers.
My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton) made a helpful and constructive speech. He was right to set out the benefits that come from the increased number of places available in engineering, mathematics, sciences and other subjects of that kind. We are looking sympathetically at the point that he raised about the university pension fund.
The UGC has assured Heriot-Watt university that it will be given every encouragement to concentrate its activities at Riccarton and to move out of the city centre.
Several hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson), referred to postgraduate students' allowances. I should like to elaborate a little on this important matter. The scheme for 1982–83 was described in a paper sent out by my Department on 29 January this year. There may be some misconception about this. After the experience of the considerable growth in awards up to 1980–81, we decided to place a ceiling on awards under the scheme. This has meant a reduction in total awards from about 1, 750 to just under 1, 500, but hon. Members will be pleased to learn that we intend to maintain the total of grants at the present level for the next academic session, 1982–83.
The right hon. Member for Craigton voiced concern about the extension of quota controls to certain courses which were exempted last year. These include the diploma in legal practice, certain diploma courses in architecture and courses for the ministry. I am happy to reassure hon. Members that transitional arrangements are being worked out in consultation with the educational institutions and the professional associations concerned to ensure that students committed to a certain diploma course in one of those subjects before January 1982, when the new policy was announced, will be financed to the end of their studies. The consultation paper promised consultation on the quotas to be fixed for 1982–83, and these are well under way. We are sure that some of the difficulties that have been raised with us will be overcome.
My hon. Friend the Member for Fife, East (Mr. Henderson) suggested that students at St. Andrews and perhaps other universities in Scotland were not receiving the full grant from local education authorities in England for a full four-year course. We have no evidence of this. If my hon. Friend has details of a specific refusal I should be very grateful if he would let me have them.
As my hon. Friend said, Labour Members argue about higher education, as they do about everything else, on the narrow basis of public expenditure. This debate has been no exception, with the result that they have failed to realise the major advances that are taking place in higher education in Scotland. Improvements are taking place and financial resources are being conserved at the same time, because there is a greater overall cost-effectiveness.
As my right hon. Friend said, the strength of our central institutions is that they are engaged in the business of providing vocationally orientated courses that meet the needs of industries and of the professions. As a result the colleges also meet the needs of their students, almost all of whom obtain employment when they graduate. This is particularly the case in electronics, oil and gas, textiles and other industries, at which many more college courses are aimed today than was the case two or three years ago. We have doubled the number of higher national diplomas in electronics. We have increased by 50 per cent. in the past couple of years the number of electrical engineering graduates. These are the sorts of vocational courses that more and more young people want and we are providing them to the best of our ability. These are the skills that industry needs very much today.
There are two other factors that have helped to bring about the improved cost-effectiveness in higher education. First, there is the liaison between the colleges themselves and between the colleges and universities, which has been led and encouraged by the Scottish Education Department. This has never been better. As a consequence, resources are being put to better use. Secondly, the central institutions have increased considerably their student intake, without a corresponding increase in staff numbers. As my right hon. Friend said, the ratio has gone from eight students to one lecturer about two years ago to 10:1 today without any reduction in standards in the colleges. Those are the sorts of changes and improvements that can be made in higher education, as in anything else, at a time when resources have to be used more effectively.
With regard to the universities, Opposition Members will realise that the equipment grant is also important, particularly in technical subjects such as science, in the medical schools and in the engineering faculties. Under the Labour Government the equipment grant decreased in real terms, whereas under this Government it has increased in real terms. That is a proper ordering of priorities for higher education in Scotland and elsewhere in the United Kingdom. I am sure that my hon. Friends will appreciate the importance of that decision.
In regard to higher education funding as it affects Scotland, the figures that I shall quote exclude expenditure on universities but include recurrent expenditure on teacher training, on further education in local authority and central institutions, and on student awards. The Scottish expenditure figures in cash terms for 1981–82 were £281 million, for 1982–83 £295 million and for 1983–84 £306 million. These are modest but important advances in public expenditure aimed at the very area that is the subject of the debate—higher education in Scotland.
At the same time, expenditure in central institutions is increasing. Provision in percentage terms in 1982–83 is 8 per cent. above that for 1981–82 and 20 per cent. above the level for 1980–81. The rate support grant settlement for 1982–83 assumes local authority expenditure on further education at a level of 12 per cent. above that for last year. That again is a significant contribution to education in Scotland. These figures totally refute the charge that the Government are failing to give the fullest possible support to Scotland's renowned education system.
Other steps are being taken to improve education in Scotland. We have been very quick off the mark in the introduction of microcomputers into schools and colleges. We have helped to bring together education and industry in microelectronics and in biotechnology. My right hon.

Friend and I sponsor meetings to make sure that industry and education at the higher level are talking to each other and working with each other.
My right hon. Friend has made special provision to allow the replacement in National Health Service establishments of any post which universities can no longer afford but which are important for patient care or are important for the output of trained specialists. This is additional funding. It does not come off the revenue amounts made available to the health boards; it has been added to the revenue expenditure of the NHS in Scotland. I believe that Opposition Members will welcome that.
Hon. Members also raised the question of my right hon. Friend's decision on repeated periods of study. This does not affect students who change courses. We are reviewing our policies in this area, again in consultation with the appropriate education interests.
The Government have not neglected higher education in Scotland. The University Grants Committee is steering the universities towards more vocational courses, science based. That is admittedly at the expense of fewer places in the arts and social sciences, but it is done to meet national and local needs.
The transitional period of course raises difficulties, particularly as few people in universities have experienced anything other than an expanding amount of public funding. But the situation requires radical thinking and new ideas, which have been provided both by the Government and by the UGC. This assists in particular the students themselves, who require vocational training so that they can find employment in the competitive industrial situation in the world today.
I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to support the amendment and defeat the motion.

Question put,  That the original words stand part of the Question:—

The House divided: Ayes 231, Noes 293.

Division No. 93]
[7 pm


AYES


Abse, Leo
Cocks, Rt Hon M. (B'stol S)


Adams, Allen
Cohen, Stanley


Allaun, Frank
Coleman, Donald


Alton, David
Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.


Anderson, Donald
Conlan, Bernard


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Cowans, Harry


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Cox, T. (W'dsw'th, Toot'g)


Ashton, Joe
Craigen, J. M. (G'gow, M'hill)


Atkinson, N. (H'gey, )
Crowther, Stan


Bagier, GordonA.T.
Cryer, Bob


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Cunningham, G.(IslingtonS)


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (H'wd)
Cunningham, DrJ. (W'h'n)


Beith, A.J.
Dalyell, Tam


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Davidson, Arthur


Bennett, Andrew(St'kp'tN)
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L 'lli)


Bidwell, Sydney
Davies, Ifor (Gower)


Booth, RtHonAlbert
Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)


Boothroyd, MissBetty
Davis, Terry (B'ham, Stechf'd)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Deakins, Eric


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)


Brown, Ronald W. (H'ckn'yS)
Dixon, Donald


Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)
Dobson, Frank


Buchan, Norman
Dormand, Jack


Callaghan, Jim(Midd't'n&amp;P)
Douglas, Dick


Campbell, Ian
Dubs, Alfred


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Duffy, A. E. P.


Canavan, Dennis
Dunn, James A.


Cant, R. B.
Dunnett, Jack


Carmichael, Neil
Eadie, Alex


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Eastham, Ken


Cartwright, John
Edwards, R. (W'hampt'nS E)


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Ellis, R.(NE D'bysh're)






Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
Mellish, RtHon Robert


English, Michael
Mikardo, Ian


Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
Millan, RtHon Bruce


Evans, John (Newton)
Mitchell, Austin(Grimsby)


Ewing, Harry
Mitchell, R.C. (Soton Itchen)


Field, Frank
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Fitch, Alan
Morris, Rt Hon C. (O'shaw)


Flannery, Martin
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Moyle, RtHon Roland


Foot, RtHon Michael
Mulley, RtHon Frederick


Ford, Ben
Newens, Stanley


Forrester, John
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Foster, Derek
O'Neill, Martin


Foulkes, George
Orme, RtHon Stanley


Fraser, J. (Lamb'th, N'w'd)
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David


Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Palmer, Arthur


Freud, Clement
Park, George


Garrett, John (NorwichS)
Parker, John


George, Bruce
Parry, Robert


Gilbert, RtHon Dr John
Pavitt, Laurie


Golding, John
Pendry, Tom


Grant, George (Morpeth)
Penhaligon, David


Grimond, RtHon J.
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Price, C. (Lewisham W)


Hamilton, W. W. (C'tral Fife)
Race, Reg


Hardy, Peter
Radice, Giles


Harrison, RtHon Walter
Richardson, Jo


Hart, RtHon Dame Judith
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Roberts, Allan(Bootle)


Haynes, Frank
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)


Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)


Heffer, Eric S.
Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)


Hogg, N. (EDunb't'nshire)
Rodgers, RtHon William


Holland, S.(L'b'th, Vauxh'll)
Rooker, J. W.


HomeRobertson, John
Roper, John


Homewood, William
Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)


Hooley, Frank
Rowlands, Ted


Huckfield, Les
Ryman, John


Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Sever, John


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Sheerman, Barry


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Sheldon, Rt Hon R.


Janner, HonGreville
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


John, Brynmor
Short, Mrs Renée


Johnson, James (Hull West)
Silkin, RtHon J.(Deptford)


Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Skinner, Dennis


Jones, Rt Hon Alec (Rh'dda)
Smith, Rt Hon J. (N Lanark)


Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Snape, Peter


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Soley, Clive


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Spearing, Nigel


Kerr, Russell
Spriggs, Leslie


Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Stallard, A.W.


Lambie, David
Steel, Rt Hon David


Lamborn, Harry
Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)


Lamond, James
Stoddart, David


Leadbitter, Ted
Stott, Roger


Leighton, Ronald
Strang, Gavin


Lestor, MissJoan
Straw, Jack


Lewis, Arthur(N'ham NW)
Summerskill, HonDrShirley


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Litherland, Robert
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Thorne, Stan (PrestonSouth)


Lyon, Alexander (York)
Tilley, John


Lyons, Edward (Bradf'dW)
Tinn, James


Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson
Torney, Tom


McCartney, Hugh
Urwin, Rt Hon Tom


McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


McKelvey, William
Wainwright, E, (DearneV)


MacKenzie, RtHonGregor
Wainwright, R. (ColneV)


McNally, Thomas
Walker, Rt Hon H.(D'caster)


McNamara, Kevin
Watkins, David


McTaggart, Robert
Wellbeloved, James


McWilliam, John
Welsh, Michael


Marks, Kenneth
White, Frank R.


Marshall, D(G'gowS'ton)
White, J. (G'gow Pollok)


Marshall, DrEdmund (Goole)
Whitehead, Phillip


Marshall, Jim (LeicesterS)
Whitlock, William


Martin, M(G'gowS'burn)
Wigley, Dafydd


Maxton, John
Williams, RtHonA.(S'sea W)


Maynard, MissJoan
Williams, Rt Hon Mrs (Crosby)


Meacher, Michael
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)





Wilson, RtHon Sir H.(H'ton)
Young, David (Bolton E)


Wilson, William (C'trySE)



Winnick, David
Tellers for the Ayes:


Woodall, Alec
Mr. Lawrence Cunliffe and


Woolmer, Kenneth
Mr. George Morton.


Wright, Sheila





NOES


Aitken, Jonathan
Fairgrieve, SirRussell


Alexander, Richard
Faith, MrsSheila


Alison, RtHon Michael
Farr, John


Amery, RtHon Julian
Fell, SirAnthony


Aspinwall, Jack
Fenner, Mrs Peggy


Atkins, Robert (PrestonN)
Finsberg, Geoffrey


Atkinson, David(B'm'th, E)
Fisher, SirNigel


Baker, Kenneth(St.M'bone)
Fletcher, A. (Ed'nb'ghN)


Baker, Nicholas (NDorset)
Fletcher-Cooke, SirCharles


Banks, Robert
Fookes, MissJanet


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Forman, Nigel


Bendall, Vivian
Fowler, RtHon Norman


Benyon, Thomas(A'don)
Fox, Marcus


Benyon, W. (Buckingham)
Fraser, RtHon Sir Hugh


Best, Keith
Fry, Peter


Bevan, David Gilroy
Gardiner, George (Reigate)


Biggs-Davison, SirJohn
Gardner, Edward (SFylde)


Blackburn, John
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Bonsor, SirNicholas
Gilmour, RtHon Sir Ian


Boscawen, HonRobert
Glyn, DrAlan


Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W)
Goodhart, SirPhilip


Boyson, DrRhodes
Goodhew, SirVictor


Braine, SirBernard
Goodlad, Alastair


Bright, Graham
Gorst, John


Brinton, Tim
Gow, Ian


Brooke, Hon Peter
Grant, Anthony (HarrowC)


Brotherton, Michael
Gray, Hamish


Brown, Michael(Brigg&amp;Sc'n)
Greenway, Harry


Browne, John(Winchester)
Griffiths, E. (B'ySt. Edm 'ds)


Bruce-Gardyne, John
Griffiths, Peter Portsm'th N)


Bryan, Sir Paul
Grist, Ian


Buck, Antony
Gummer, JohnSelwyn


Budgen, Nick
Hamilton, Hon A.


Bulmer, Esmond
Hamilton, Michael(Salisbury)


Burden, SirFrederick
Hampson, DrKeith


Butcher, John
Hannam, John


Cadbury, Jocelyn
Haselhurst, Alan


Carlisle, John (LutonWest)
Hastings, Stephen


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael


Carlisle, RtHon M.(R'c'n)
Hawksley, Warren


Chalker, Mrs. Lynda
Hayhoe, Barney


Channon, Rt. Hon. Paul
Heddle, John


Chapman, Sydney
Henderson, Barry


Churchill, W.S.
Heseltine, RtHon Michael


Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th, S'n)
Hicks, Robert


Clark, Sir W, (Croydon S)
Higgins, Rt HonTerence L.


Clarke, Kenneth(Rushcliffe)
Hogg, HonDouglas(Gr'th'm)


Clegg, SirWalter
Holland, Philip(Carlton)


Cockeram, Eric
Hooson, Tom


Colvin, Michael
Hordern, Peter


Cope, John
Howell, RtHon D.(G'ldf'd)


Cormack, Patrick
Howell, Ralph (NNorfolk)


Corrie, John
Hunt, David (Wirral)


Costain, SirAlbert
Hunt, John(Ravensbourne)


Cranborne, Viscount
Hurd, RtHon Douglas


Critchley, Julian
Irving, Charles(Cheltenham)


Crouch, David
Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick


Dean, Paul (NorthSomerset)
JohnsonSmith, Geoffrey


Dickens, Geoffrey
Jopling, RtHonMichael


Dorrell, Stephen
Joseph, RtHon Sir Keith


Douglas-Hamilton, LordJ.
Kaberry, SirDonald


Dover, Denshore
Kellett-Bowman, MrsElaine


Dunn, Robert(Dartford)
Kershaw, SirAnthony


Durant, Tony
Kimball, SirMarcus


Dykes, Hugh
King, RtHon Tom


Eden, RtHon Sir John
Kitson, SirTimothy


Edwards, Rt Hon N, (P'broke)
Knight, MrsJill


Eggar, Tim
Knox, David


Elliott, SirWilliam
Lamont, Norman


Emery, Sir Peter
Lang, Ian


Eyre, Reginald
Langford-Holt, SirJohn


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Latham, Michael






Lawrence, Ivan
Myles, David


Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel
Neale, Gerrard


Lee, John
Needham, Richard


LeMarchant, Spencer
Nelson, Anthony


Lennox-Boyd, HonMark
Neubert, Michael


Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Newton, Tony


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Onslow, Cranley


Lloyd, Ian (Havant&amp; W'loo)
Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Osborn, John


Loveridge, John
Page, John (Harrow, West)


Luce, Richard
Page, Richard (SWHerts)


Lyell, Nicholas
Parkinson, RtHonCecil


McCrindle, Robert
Parris, Matthew


Macfarlane, Neil
Patten, Christopher(Bath)


MacGregor, John
Pawsey, James


McNair-Wilson, M.(N'bury)
Peyton, Rt Hon John


McNair-Wilson, P. (NewF'st)
Pink, R.Bonner


McQuarrie, Albert
Pollock, Alexander


Madel, David
Porter, Barry


Major, John
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Marland, Paul
Price, SirDavid (Eastleigh)


Marlow, Antony
Prior, Rt Hon James


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Proctor, K.Harvey


Mates, Michael
Pym, Rt Hon Francis


Maude, Rt Hon Sir Angus
Raison, RtHonTimothy


Mawby, Ray
Rathbone, Tim


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)


Mayhew, Patrick
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Mellor, David
Renton, Tim


Meyer, SirAnthony
Rhodes James, Robert


Miller, Hal (B'grove)
RhysWilliams, SirBrandon


Mills, Iain (Meriden)
Ridley, HonNicholas


Mills, Peter (WestDevon)
Ridsdale, SirJulian


Miscampbell, Norman
Rifkind, Malcolm


Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Rippon, RtHonGeoffrey


Moate, Roger
Roberts, M. (CardiffNW)


Monro, SirHector
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Montgomery, Fergus
Rossi, Hugh


Moore, John
Rost, Peter


Morgan, Geraint
Royle, SirAnthony


Morris, M. (N'hamptonS)
Sainsbury, HonTimothy


Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)
St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.


Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Mudd, David
Shaw, Michael(Scarborough)


Murphy, Christopher
Shelton, William(Streatham)





Shepherd, Colin(Hereford)
Townsend, Cyril D, (B'heath)


Shepherd, Richard
Trippier, David


Silvester, Fred
Trotter, Neville


Sims, Roger
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Skeet, T. H. H.
Vaughan, DrGerard


Smith, Dudley
Viggers, Peter


Speed, Keith
Waddington, David


Speller, Tony
Waldegrave, HonWilliam


Spence, John
Walker, Rt Hon P.(W'cester)


Spicer, Jim (WestDorset)
Walker, B. (Perth)


Spicer, Michael (SWorcs)
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir D.


Sproat, Iain
Wall, SirPatrick


Squire, Robin
Waller, Gary


Stainton, Keith
Walters, Dennis


Stanbrook, Ivor
Ward, John


Stanley, John
Warren, Kenneth


Steen, Anthony
Watson, John


Stevens, Martin
Wells, Bowen


Stewart, A. (ERenfrewshire)
Wells, John(Maidstone)


Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)
Wheeler, John


Stokes, John
Wickenden, Keith


StradlingThomas, J.
Wiggin, Jerry


Tapsell, Peter
Williams.D.(Montgomery)


Taylor, Teddy (S'endE)
Winterton, Nicholas


Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman
Wolfson, Mark


Temple-Morris, Peter
Young, SirGeorge(Acton)


Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.
Younger, RtHonGeorge


Thomas, Rt Hon Peter



Thompson, Donald
Tellers for the Noes:


Thorne, Neil(IlfordSouth)
Mr. Anthony Berry and


Thornton, Malcolm
Mr. Carol Mather.


Townend, John (Bridlington)

Question accordingly negatived.

Question,  That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 32 (Questions on amendments) and agreed to.

Main Question, as amended, agreed to.

Resolved, 
That this House recognises the need for higher education in Scotland to bear a proportion of reductions in public expenditure and commends the steps taken by Her Majesty's Government and the University Grants Committee to re-order priorities to ensure a high standard of provision consistent with national needs.

Orders of the Day — Overseas Visitors (Health Service Charges)

Mr. Terry Davis: I beg to move,
That this House condemns the new arrangements being made by the Secretary of State for Social Services for charges for National Health Service treatment for overseas vistors; draws attention to the favourable position of visitors from the EEC compared with other countries; doubts that these new arrangements will result in an increased revenue of £6 million per annum for the National Health Service; and considers that the proposed changes will not eliminate racial discrimination in the provision of National Health Service treatment.

Mr. Speaker: I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.

Mr. Davis: Everyone is against abuse of the National Health Service or any other part of what it is now unfashionable to call the "Welfare State". However, in deciding what should be done to prevent abuse, we must have regard to three points. First, any special measures must be effective in preventing or detecting whatever abuse may take place. Secondly, the cost of any such arrangements must be reasonable in relation to the revenue that will be generated. Thirdly, such arrangements must not cause unnecessary offence to other people who are entitled to treatment from the NHS without any change at the time of treatment.
First, it needs to be emphasised that we are talking about charges for hospital treatment. This may seem an obvious point, but there appears to be some confusion, extending to Ministers. Indeed, it extends to the hon. Member for Reading, South (Dr. Vaughan) who was, until recently, the Minister for Health. He said during a television interview that this upheaval was taking place because people visit Britain and have glasses or dental treatment on the NHS when they are merely visiting. I do not know what the Minister for Health had in mind when he was talking about his new proposals, but they certainly do not cover that sort of case.
It needs to be clearly and firmly said that many foreigners and overseas visitors are entitled, as of right, to be treated at no charge by the NHS in exactly the same way as any British resident. In the first place, it is residence which matters and not nationality or origin. Many people who are not British citizens are entitled to free treatment by the NHS hospitals and have always been entitled to this free treatment because they live in Britain. They do not have to work here; it is enough to be a resident of England or Wales.
Over the years, other people who are neither British citizens nor residents have become entitled to free treatment as a result of reciprocal arrangements concluded by successive Governments with the Governments of other countries. That was extended automatically in 1973 to all visitors from the Common Market. Of course, there are other overseas visitors who are not entitled to free treatment in hospital under the NHS.
Historically, both Conservative and Labour Governments have allowed visitors from other countries to receive free treatment in certain circumstances. It has been called treatment of immediate necessity for conditions arising, or unexpectedly and seriously exacerbated, while the visitors are in this country. It is not

a right for them to receive free treatment under the National Health Service, but it is not an abuse for them to receive free treatment.
If they receive treatment in other circumstances, that is, and always has been, wrong. It is an abuse. In seeking to deal with this abuse, the Government have displayed their usual ineptitude. They are not only trying to stop abuse. They are also restricting the circumstances in which the National Health Service will provide free treatment for some but not all overseas visitors. I emphasise "some" overseas visitors.
The Government's proposals will not affect at least half of the overseas visitors, mainly from the Common Market, to this country. They will continue to receive free treatment in hospitals from the National Health Service. The Government's first mistake was to fail to make any proper estimate of the abuse or the number of people who had previously received National Health Service treatment legitimately and who will be expected to pay in future. It is surely not unreasonable to expect the Government to begin by making an estimate of the numbers of people involved and the cost of their treatment. Instead, Ministers have contented themselves with making a series of unsupported assertions in the House and elsewhere about fairly widespread abuse of the National Health Service by well-heeled foreigners, as the right hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Jenkin) put it.
It is significant that the only available figures for the numbers of people involved are contained in the report of the working party established by the Government to look into the procedures for these charges after the decision had been made. What do we find? The working party arranged for 8, 152 people to be questioned. These were people who sought treatment at 10 hospitals in England and Wales. The overwhelming majority, 8, 071 out of the 8, 152, were found to be eligible for free treatment without any doubt whatever.
Only 81 people out of the 8, 152, or 1 per cent., needed any further questioning. But this did not mean that 1 per cent. of the people being treated at those hospitals were not entitled to free treatment. On the contrary, the detailed analysis in the report shows that these 81 people included 43 who had lived in the United Kingdom for between one and three years or who were United Kingdom residents working abroad and had returned briefly to this country. Both groups will be exempt under the Government's proposals.
The figure is therefore reduced from 1 per cent. to half of 1 per cent. But the reduction does not stop there. The figure also includes people who had come from the Common Market or from countries with which we have reciprocal arrangements. These people will continue to receive free treatment as overseas visitors. It is not known exactly how many people out of the 8, 152 come into this category because there is some double counting in the analysis provided by the working party. It is, however, known that the 81 people who needed further questioning included 15 from the Common Market, three from Spain, which will shortly join the Common Market, and at least four from countries with which we have reciprocal arrangements.
These 22, at least, out of the 81 people bring the proportion down to one quarter of one half of 1 per cent., or one person in every thousand, who may be liable to be charged. This is before taking account of overseas visitors who have some communicable disease. Heaven


knows—certainly the Secretary of State does not—how many people fell into this category. I must stress that these figures show only the number of people—less than one in a thousand—who may be liable to be charged under the Secretary of State's proposals.

Mr. Robert Atkins: The hon. Gentleman is probably not aware of a letter written during the period of the previous Labour Government, relating to an inquiry from a doctor, which stated:
It is well aware of the problem of the abuse of the service to which you draw attention.
That occurred in October 1978. The previous Labour Government were therefore aware of the problem. Is the hon. Gentleman now seeking to show that it does not exist?

Mr. Davis: I thought that I had already made it clear that I was not saying that there was no abuse of the National Health Service. I am saying only that it is so minute that it is not worth the trouble of taking these measures. The hon. Member for Preston, North (Mr. Atkins) has referred to a letter written during the period of the previous Labour Government. I recall that when he raised this matter during Question Time the hon. Gentleman flourished a thick file of letters that he said he had received on the issue. The hon. Gentleman never told the House how many of those letters concerned people who will now be charged as a result of the Government's proposal. He never told us how many letters were in the file. He never said how many would be affected by the Government's proposals.
Let him take out of his file all the letters about people who have lived here for more than one year. Let him take out of his file all the letters about people who have come to work in this country. Let him take out of his file all the letters about wives and husbands, sons and daughters, of people who live in this country. Let him take out of his file all the letters about overseas students who have been here for more than one year. Then let him say how many people will be affected by the Government's proposals.

Mr. Atkins: The hon. Gentleman provokes me, although I hope, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to catch your eye later to give more details. The simple answer to the hon. Gentleman is that, in one week, on the very issue to which he refers, I received nearly 300 letters, the vast majority from doctors, nurses and health administrators dealing with the very areas of concern to which he has referred. That figure is reached after taking out all the areas that he has understandably excluded.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): Order. A number of hon. Members are waiting to catch my eye. This is a short debate. Long interventions, especially from an hon. Member hoping to catch my eye, make for long speeches.

Mr. Davis: I do not dispute the hon. Gentleman's statement that he has received 300 letters. I question only that this means that there are 300 overseas visitors who have abused the National Health Service. All hon. Members have heard of people who brandish files of letters. We are not impressed by Preston's version of Senator McCarthy.
I stress that these figures show only the number of people—less than one in a thousand—who may be liable to be charged under the Secretary of State's proposals.

These proposals involve a change in the rules. It cannot be said that one in a thousand hospital patients are abusing the National Health Service. The Secretary of State will say that the figures are only a guide and cannot be taken as a measure of the abuse that he believes to exist somewhere if only he could find it. He can fairly say that these figures rely on questions and answers and that people may not have answered truthfully.
To be blunt, it is quite likely that people who want to abuse the National Health Service will tell lies, but there is nothing in the proposals to stop that. On the contrary, the report of the working party emphasises that the answers given by the patient should be accepted. There is plenty of room for liars in the new procedure. An overseas visitor liable to pay for treatment can simply lie about the reason for his presence in this country, not tell the truth about the time he has spent here or not tell the truth about whether there is a husband or wife living here. There is nothing to detect these lies. If the new procedure is introduced, it will be totally ineffective in stopping abuse of the National Health Service by overseas visitors. Not only is it ineffective, but I doubt whether it would be cost effective.
One matter that distinguishes the Government is that Ministers of Health may come and go but they all have one thing in common. They are always evasive about money. Wherever we look—the expected reductions in the management costs of the Health Service as a result of reorganisation or the new dental charges that we discussed last week—those Ministers can never explain where they get their figures from. A classic example is that a year ago the Department of Health and Social Security said that the charges would save £5 million. Now the Secretary of State is saying that the figure is £6 million. In the meantime, the Government—under pressure—have extended the categories of people who will be exempt and have dropped the idea of charging for the community services provided by the National Health Service.
How has the Secretary of State calculated his figure of £6 million? So far, he has given only one clue. I understand that when he gave evidence to the Race Relations and Immigration Sub-Committee he said that he had assumed that overseas visitors had a similar usage of hospitals as what he described as the "home population". That is a dubious assumption. It is based on several other assumptions, such as that overseas visitors have exactly the same age and occupation profile and medical histories as the population of England and Wales, which is obviously wrong.
Then there is the assumption that the illnesses experienced by overseas visitors and the treatment received by them are the same as the illnesses of and treatments provided to people who live here. I suspect that that is also wrong. How many overseas visitors have a long period of treatment on a kidney machine, or neurosurgery, or any other expensive treatment? Lastly, there is the assumption that overseas visitors, if they are rot entitled to free treatment, are still going to the National Health Service instead of paying for private treatment.
It is not only a question of the revenue from those charges but a question of cost. How much will the new-fangled system of questioning cost? The working party says that its elaborate proposals could be implemented without any significant increase in administration costs. It then goes on to say that there might be a need for additional


staff in some hospitals, but no one knows. The working party's trial involved only the first stage of a proposed two-stage procedure.
A study of its proposals will show that the extra cost depends upon how many people are referred to the untested second stage, but there is no relationship between the costs of questioning all those people and the eventual amounts charged for treating a small minority of them. After the bills are issued, there is also the cost of collection, especially where there is no machinery for collecting charges to private patients. The more that one examines the figure of £6 million, the more doubtful it looks. I hope that the Secretary of State this evening will either explain his estimate or, better still, publish a paper explaining how he has made the calculations.
My third point is the unnecessary offence that will be caused by the interrogation of patients, because under the Government's proposal every patient entering a hospital will be required to submit to questioning. That includes everyone entitled to free treatment, even before they receive any treatment. No one knows how many will then be referred to a more detailed interrogation. From the report of the working party, we know that the second stage will include many people who are entitled to free treatment, including those who give unclear or uncertain answers at the first stage. The Secretary of State insisted that no offence would be given. In his submission to the Sub-Committee, he put great emphasis on the fact that when the working party conducted its trial only 12 people refused to answer the questions.
Typically, the right hon. Gentleman misses the point—in fact he misses three points. First, it was made clear to those taking part in the trial that it was only a trial and that it was voluntary. There is always a better response when people are asked to help in a survey than when they are told that they must answer questions to determine their eligibility for treatment. Secondly, there is no connection between refusal and objection. People may participate in the questioning in a voluntary survey, but that does not mean that they do not object. Thirdly, there was no trial for stage two, with its detailed questions.
In the Labour Party we have a much more fundamental objection. In his statement to the House and submission to the Sub-Committee, the Secretary of State admitted that under the existing rules and guidance there have been several instances in which members of ethnic minorities—people entitled to free treatment from the National Health Service—have been the victims of racial discrimination. What happens is that someone with a black or brown face is asked to produce his or her passport, irrelevant though that is, in order to prove to the satisfaction of the admissions clerk that there is an entitlement to treatment at the hospital.
The Government's answer is to put everyone through the hoop and to question everyone regardless of their ethnic origin. However, the real problem comes after that with stage two and the selection of people who will be subject to further questioning. In view of what has already been established about the way in which some clerks behave towards members of ethnic minorities, the Opposition are naturally concerned that the new two-stage procedure may lead to many more instances of discrimination.
The working party says that if someone answers "Yes" at the first stage, which means that he is entitled to free treatment in a National Health Service hospital, no further questions will be asked. In other words, the clerk should accept whatever the patient says regardless of colour or accent—which may mean North Atlantic—and regardless of any suspicions that the clerk may have which may be reasonable or unreasonable, justified or unjustified.
Is that really the Government's position? Will the Secretary of State really issue instructions that if a clerk, for whatever reason, suspects that someone is not telling the truth no further questions will be asked? What will he do if his instructions are ignored? Will disciplinary action be taken? The Opposition will believe that when they see it. Meanwhile, we remain unconvinced that the new procedure of questions for all will stop discrimination against some British citizens and residents.
I wish to put two further points to the House. First, with the new procedure the Government must calculate charges for everything in NHS hospitals. The Opposition have already expressed the view that that may be a paving measure and a way of introducing widespread charges in NHS hospitals, with the intention that eventually everyone will pay. Secondly, a point that has not been brought to public attention is that the Government will not only charge overseas visitors for some treatment of immediate necessity—which was previously provided at no charge—but they will charge overseas visitors for treatment that they would not have had under the present arangements, as I understand them. What is to stop the NHS competing with private medicine? What is to stop NHS hospitals providing treatment for more overseas visitors instead of fewer overseas visitors with the inevitable pressure on hospital waiting lists?
It is no part of the Oppostions's case to say that there is no abuse of the National Health Service. We say that no one knows its extent. The Government have not made any effort to find out and there is no evidence to suggest that it is anything more than minute. The Government are using a sledgehammer to crack a nut.
As to the other changes, the Secretary of State has failed to explain how he calculated that his new procedure will earn £6 million for the National Health Service over and above the cost of questioning every patient who goes into hospital and the cost of setting up the machinery to collect the charges. Finally, the new procedure will do nothing to eliminate racial discrimination in the National Health Service. For all those reasons, the Opposition condemn the new arrangements.

The Secretary of State for Social Services (Mr. Norman Fowler): I beg to move, to leave out from "That" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
this House welcomes a commonsense and fair measure to raise extra income for the National Health Service from charging overseas visitors for hospital treatment, which lifts the burden from the British taxpayer and avoids the possibility of racial discrimination in the present hospital admission procedures.
Perhaps I may start with an agreed basis of facts, because of course there are some facts that cannot be denied. They are not the invention of the Common Market, which is mentioned in the Opposition's motion, nor of my Department. I suggest that there are three such facts.
The first is that the number of overseas visitors to this country now totals about 12 million a year, and about 5 million of them are not covered by reciprocal health agreements.
The second fact is that, unfortunately, some of these visitors who come to this country fall ill and receive hospital treatment. The third fact is that the hospital treatment that they receive costs money.
I suggest that the initial question is who should pay for this treatment. That basically comes down to whether the British taxpayer should pay, or the foreign visitor—or, to be more accurate, the insurance company covering the foreign visitor.
The Government's starting position is simply that we see no reason why the British taxpayer should pick up the bill in these cases. Even less do we see any reason for that when, if a British resident goes to a country that is not covered by a reciprocal arrangement, he will have to pay.
We should be under no illusion about this. If a British resident goes to the United States, Australia, Canada, Nigeria or Japan, falls ill and requires hospital treatment, he will be charged. We are suggesting that if an American, Australian, Canadian, Nigerian or Japanese comes here, he, too, should be charged. We suggest that the cost should not fall on the British taxpayer and that before coming to this country visitors should be warned of the position and insure against the risks. In other words, we are bringing our position into line with that in those countries.
The position that we are changing—I was not clear having listened to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. Davis) whether he was defending it—is completely indefensible, because the present procedure is ramshackle and haphazard in its application. It is indefensible, because for those very reasons it can lead to the possibility of discrimination on racial grounds. The question is, therefore, whether any other objections in principle or practice stand in the way of this common sense move.
As to the principle, we should remember that the power to charge overseas visitors was not invented by this Government. It was contained in the National Health Service (Amendment) Act 1949. That Act gave the Government power to make regulations to charge persons not ordinarily resident in Great Britain. It is basically that power, introduced by a Labour Government, that we shall be using, and we shall be using it for the very clear reasons set out in the report of the working party that was set up in July 1981 to consider the position.
The setting up of that working party and the report that it has presented show the care with which we have approached this question. The working party contained representatives from throughout the Health Service and from other organisations, such as the Commission for Racial Equality. It examined the present system and ways of making the suggested new system work.
There is a procedure for overseas visitors. It was introduced under guidance issued in 1963 and it has remained the policy ever since, including during the period of the Labour Government. In brief, it lays down that short-term visitors should be private patients, but with a number of exceptions. Emergency treatment is free, and that includes treatment arising from an accident or an illness contracted here. Whatever the intention may have

been, there is no question but that the present system does not work, and if one reads the working party report one sees that there is no way of reaching any other conclusion.
A special study was set up at four hospitals, and the conclusions are set out in paragraph 13 of the report. It found, first, that the checks made on patients to establish illegible overseas visitors were infrequent and irregular; secondly, that the registration of patients was largely carried out by clerical officers, many of whom were not aware of any restrictions on NHS treatment of overseas visitors—that does not sound to me to be a system that is working well—and, thirdly, that patients were often questioned about eligibility only if they had given a foreign place of birth or address or were of foreign appearance.
That is the system that has been examined by the working party and which the Opposition are apparently defending. Those findings were confirmed by a further questionnaire to hospitals and health authorities, and left the working party in no doubt that the present position was unsatisfactory. It is unsatisfactory for a number of reasons: because the intention of the 1963 guidance is clearly being defeated, because the system is wide open to abuse, and because it can lead to discrimination.
On the question of discrimination, it is worth looking at what the working party said:
Because the checks currently used by many hospitals appear to be based on little more than intuition of hospital staff that a patient may not be resident in this country, there is a distinct risk that they may be being applied in a way which discriminates against members of ethnic minorities living here. We therefore feel that there are strong arguments for laying down a uniform procedure for establishing a patient's eligibility and that this procedure should be administered universally".
The next logical step in the view of both the Government and the working party was to consider whether the proposed new system could work. The working party had already said that hospitals gather a considerable amount of personal detail about a patient entering hospital and that
Most staff involved in the registration of patients thought it would be feasible to include in the hospitals' current registration procedure some additional questions to determine eligibility, providing the questions asked were simple and unambiguous".
The working party then tried out a simple questionnaire at each of 10 hospitals. The questions were designed to check on residence in this country, and the conclusions of the study were again quite clear. They were that, on the evidence of the trial, the procedure could be used to establish rapidly and unobtrusively the prima facie eligibility of the great majority—8, 071 out of 8, 152—of patients.
The questionnaire also established that most hospitals felt that this part of the procedure could be implemented—this is important—without additional staff being employed. It found that staff reaction was generally favourable, and most staff, including doctors, have been willing to co-operate. It also found that very few—precisely 12—patients out of the 8, 152 had objected to answering the questions.

Mr. Michael Meacher: The right hon. Gentleman knows that the working party said that extra staff were needed for stage 2 of the procedure. Does he propose to make extra funds available for extra staff? If not, what is his estimate of the cost of transferring existing staff from other more worthwhile duties?

Mr. Fowler: In respect of stage 1, there is no dispute about extra staff being required. That is what the working party found. As to stage 2 it may be that in some hospitals some extra administrative effort will be required. Given the growth in administrative and clerical staff over the last two or three years, that should be catered for in the present resources of the NHS. There is no indication that the additional administrative effort will outweigh the gain to the National Health Service.
Following the questionaire, the working party proposed a registration procedure which would be simple to administer and, equally imortant, would reduce the risk of discrimination. The working party commented, and I am sure that this will be accepted by members of the Select Committee:
No procedure can be totally discrimination-proof and a lot can depend on the attitude of staff and the way in which the questions are asked. The recommended procedures would, however, include a number of important features which we believe will greatly reduce the possibility of discrimination.
We have adopted the procedure recommended by the working party. It should go on record that there is little or no discrimination in the NHS. However, the new system, with its universal challenge, reduces the risk of discrimination.
Basically, a two-stage process is proposed. At stage 1, the admission clerk will ask a number of general questions of everyone. The questions will establish whether the patient has lived in this country for 12 months. That is the basic test. These questions will be added to the admission questions, which are asked in any event.
Only if he answers "No" to those questions will the patient go to stage 2, where he will be questioned by more senior staff on his eligibility for free treatment. The working party found that in its trial only 1 per cent. of patients went to this stage, and of course some of those would be covered by reciprocal arrangements. I have already told the Select Committee that is considering the issue that detailed guidance will be sent to hospitals on the handling of these cases in stage 2 and, further, that guidance will be circulated in draft to the ethnic community organisations. There will be an opportunity for the House to debate the regulation in a few months' time when it is laid before the House, and when the manual of guidance will also be available. We are aiming to raise additional resources for the Health Service.

Mr. Alan Clark: Although no one will accept the extraordinary slur on overseas visitors that has been put about by the Opposition, which is that they would universally claim eligibility, it is valid to ask what precautions have been taken to guard against dishonest answers to the questionnaire.

Mr. Fowler: The first aim will be to ensure that the country of origin, for example the United States or Australia, is aware of the new situation and to ensure that those who come here on holiday or on business are aware of it and take out insurance in exactly the same way as United Kingdom residents would do when visiting the United States or Australia.
There must be a balance in stage 1. The advantage is that stage 1 avoids discrimination. If, after answering stage 1, it becomes evident to one of the hospital staff—we are not advocating that the staff should seek out this information—that the person concerned is not a resident

of the United Kingdom, but comes, for example, from the United States and is returning there, he will be referred to the stage 2 procedure.

Mr. Alan Clark: Is the stage 2 procedure excluded automatically, as has been alleged by Labour Members?

Mr. Fowler: It is not. However, if the suspicions of the hospital staff were raised, the issue would be referred to the stage 2 procedure and those questions would be asked.

Mr. Frank Hooley: rose—

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: rose—

Mr. Fowler: I give way to the hon. Member for York (Mr. Lyon).

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: The right hon. Gentleman told the Select Committee that if the answer to any of the questions was "Yes" there would be no further questions at stage 1, and that only if a suspicion arose later, perhaps in the course of treatment, would the matter be taken further. He said that if somebody said "Yes", there would be no automatic reference to stage 2.

Mr. Fowler: That is right. The admission clerks will not have the power to cross-question. If someone lied at stage 1 and that became clear to the hospital staff at a later stage, it would be unreasonable for the staff to turn their back on that. That would be farcical, and so the issue would be referred and further inquiries would be made. Surely that is nothing but a commonsense arrangement. If the process leads in that direction, the patient will be questioned by more senior staff on his eligibility for free treatment.
We are aiming to raise money for the Health Service. Surely that deserves the support of the entire House. The money will go to the service. The original estimate of revenue of £5 million was made by my predecessor and was based on 1979–80 prices. The working party did not quarrel with that estimate. We have uprated the estimate to £7 million in taking account of the increase in inflation. We have deducted £1 million for the concessions that we have made, notably to overseas students.
The figures can be presented in another way. The cost of acute hospital treatment—this may come as a surprise to those Labour Members who laugh—is £3 billion a year. If the costs of treating visitors were only 0·5 per cent., that would raise about £15 million. A figure of 0·5 per cent. would raise £7½million. That range would be entirely consistent with all the figures and examples that the hon. Member for, Stechford has given. I have never sought to say that £6 million is anything but a modest estimate.
I suspect that the difference between us is not so much over the estimate as on the principle. The Government believe that it is reasonable to seek and encourage ways to supplement public spending on the National Health Service, which is now over £12 billion a year. That is why we welcome the £52 million a year that is going to the NHS from private practice, and that is why it is condemned by the Opposition. That is why we welcome the £20 million that is coming this year from the sale of surplus land. We want to see that full potential realised. This is money that goes to the Health Service and goes direct to patient care.
The motion complains that preferential treatment is to be given to EEC visitors needing hospital treatment. The hon. Member for Stechford did not make a great deal of that. That was probably because the hon. Member for


Crewe (Mrs. Dunwoody), who leads for the Opposition on these matters, drafted the motion and is not present for the debate.

Mr. Terry Davis: As the right hon. Gentleman has referred to my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe (Mrs. Dunwoody), he might mention that she is not here because she is ill.

Mr. Fowler: I understand that and make no criticism. It is not controversial to say that the hon. Lady feels strongly about the EEC. I assume that that is one reason why preferential treatment for EEC visitors is mentioned in the motion, but did not play a large part in the hon. Gentleman's speech.
The Opposition might have added the names of the countries with which we have reciprocal agreements under which we treat one another's citizens on the same basis. That arrangement is like the arrangement with the EEC. It is fair to the taxpayers of all the countries concerned. There is the additional point about the European Community arrangement. We inherited from the previous Government an arrangement under which EC countries allowed short-term visitors the same treatment as for their insured population, but only to employed people covered under our social security system. It is this Government who have succeeded in negotiating the inclusion of the self-employed in that scheme—something that will help to balance the arrangements. The previous Government failed to achieve that.
Another major point that should be understood is that we have made a number of important concessions from our initial proposals. Initially, the period of residence was to be three years. We have reduced it to one year. That is a major concession for overseas students. The position is even more favourable for students with regard to general practice. Provided that they are staying for more than 12 months, treatment is free from the beginning. Visiting dependants—spouses and children of people settled in this country—will be exempted.
We have made every effort to meet the legitimate concern that has been expressed. We have devised a scheme which is administratively simple, which minimises the chance of discrimination and which raises money for the National Health Service. Above all, the public will regard the scheme as fair and will be unable to understand the view of the Opposition that the British taxpayer should shoulder the financial burden of paying for the medical expenses of overseas visitors. It is a sensible and commonsense measure. I hope that the House will reject the Opposition's foolish motion.

Mr. Laurie Pavitt: Anyone who has served on hospital or regional hospital authorities will recognise that the Secretary of State is learning rapidly, but, unfortunately, without a great deal of understanding.
I wish to refer to the £3, 000 million for acute surgery. The right hon. Gentleman knows as well as I do that for 30 years overseas visitors who have needed medical treatment have paid fully. The abuse is only a small one. From the figures given by the London teaching hospitals, the right hon. Gentleman will know that the proportion of overseas patients who fail to pay their bills is minute compared with the number of British private patients who fail to pay.
I wish to confine my remarks to about 10 minutes, so I cannot demolish as many of the right hon. Gentleman's arguments as I would have liked.
After his statement on 12 March 1981, the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor had second thoughts. I am surprised that, after the working party, the Government have gone ahead with the scheme. It seems that they are obsessed with emotive dogma, out of touch with practicality and ignorant of NHS realities.
An excellent leader in The Guardian on 23 February was headed "Fowler's Potty Plan". Since then, like most hon. Members, I have had a chance to study the Red Book of the working party report. The Guardian leader could have been three times as long with the factual material which emerges from the report and which shows how ridiculous the proposal is in a comprehensive National Health Service costing £12 billion a year.
I rarely bore the House with figures, but I must do so now to show how the Secretary of State's calculations are way out of touch with those of hospital administrators. The Department has ordained a 10 per cent. cut in administrative costs this year from 1 April in the hope that the money can be used for medical care. However, the action that the right hon. Gentleman announced will destroy the endeavour. It is diametrically opposed to the aim.
Let me quote figures from the central Middlesex hospital, which is my local hospital. Hon. Members can translate the figures to hospitals in their constituencies. The statistics will be comparable. In 1981 in-patient admissions were 17, 492, and new out-patient admissions were 24, 918. I am dealing only with the first stage of questioning in these proposals. I am informed that if the admissions officer spends only two minutes per patient, on those figures the total time taken is 177 working days, or an additional 1, 414 hours.
Nationally, administrative excess costs would be astronomical. In 1980, 6, 808, 000 in-patients were admitted and interviewed. There were 20, 145, 000 new out-patients. I emphasise that that is new-out-patients and not out-patient attendances, for which the figure was 56 million. In a parliamentary answer I was told that it is estimated that, for the year after October 1982, the figures will be 5¾ million new in-patients and 8 million new outpatients. What miracles have happened so that there will in the coming year be less call on the NHS to that extent?
Let me again do the arithmetic. At two minutes a time, on stage 1, we get 900, 000 hours. With a 40-hour week, that would mean 450 more administrators. I will not come to stage 2, when there is a much greater need to spend time but for which no estimate is possible. However, the Government declare that they want fewer administrators, with more money spent on the practicalities of medical care and treatment.
I weary of reminding the House that one in three of the patients at the central Middlesex hospital has a black face. The Committee for Racial Equality condemns these changes. It states:
This is not the time to impose further stress on the ethnic minorities in this country.
The working party report to which the right hon. Gentleman referred states:
No procedure can be totally discrimination-proof and a lot can depend on the attitude of staff and the way in which the questions are asked. The recommended procedure would, however, include a number of important features which we believe will greatly reduce the possibility of discrimination.


Anyone who knows Brent, Brixton or Toxteth is aware that the Government are perpetrating the greatest nonsense ever. The changes may rationally or intellectually be seen as improvements, but my black people will feel certain that they are racial discrimination, even though they are carried out in the gentlest possible way. Unemployment in my area has doubled, and 80 per cent. of the unemployed school leavers from some schools are black. This is not the time to make changes that they may seem to be discriminating racially.

Mr. Fowler: The hon. Gentleman is making a serious charge. He has read the report and will have seen there the point about the prospect of discrimination in the present procedure. What is his solution for that?

Mr. Pavitt: Under the present procedure, the situation in, for example, Sutton Coldfield is different from that in central Middlesex. Most hospital workers are understanding and compassionate. They are not governed by DHSS circulars. The way in which these matters are dealt with now does not alter the fact that it will be compulsory to ask that question at stage 1. The result will be more of what happened at St. Stephen's, Fulham a year ago. Echoes will go right through the black community that this is prejudicial against ethnic minorities. That will be the accepted belief. The extra responsibility that will fall on the new district health authority, which will be formed in only a fortnight's time, is a nonsense in health administration.
For Brent, the real cuts in NHS expenditure on RAWP figures this year will entail a shortage of £280, 000 for development and a loss of 1·7 per cent. or £¾ million for growth. The right hon. Gentleman knows that that is because the north-west Thames area has a growth rate of 0·03 per cent., for historical reasons. The Government are passing the buck with regard to the nurses' pay award. Almost before the district health authorities have their feet under the table, they may have to find 2½ per cent. of the award which is to be transferred from national to district level.
The Government pursue what seems to be a rational approach, but they have no understanding of people, health or the realities of the situation. This is an example of the type of dogma that the Government pursue. I shall pray for the sanity of the newly-appointed district health authority finance officers who will have to try to cope with the Government's mental deficiency.

Mr. John Page: I am sorry that it is impossible for me to agree with the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Pavitt) whose sincerity in activities relating to the Health Service is known and apprecated by all. I hope to deal later with some of the illogicalities in his speech.
I congratulate the Government on introducing the new plan. I have been advocating its like for the past 25 years. Indeed, I discussed it at my original selection committee at Eton and Slough. That explains my—unnatural, I hope—ego-tripping in tabling an amendment of congratulation to the early-day motion in the name of the hon. Member for Crewe (Mrs. Dunwoody).
I wish that my hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Thompson) would finish his conversation with my

right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. I am about to be frightfully nice to my right hon. Friend, and I do not want him to miss the bouquets. My right hon. Friend's speech was devastating in its logic, transparent in its common sense and remarkable in its sincerity. Perhaps he will give me a job. Those who have had the opportunity of listening to my right hon. Friend's speech need no further explanation of the Government's case. Therefore, I shall deal later with something completely new.
The Opposition are wholly out of step with public opinion on this matter. From time to time, we all say that our views are supported by public opinion but I have heard no such claim in the two Opposition speeches so far. I believe that the public entirely support the Government's view on this matter. [Interruption.] My constituents are great travellers and very cosmopolitan in attitude. They love to welcome overseas visitors to Harrow—one of the most beautiful suburbs of London—but they resent seeing them getting something for nothing, whether it be in health services or London transport fares.
The hon. Member for Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. Davis), in his rather ranting speech, did not deny that there are abuses. If there are abuses, surely it is right for the Government to do something about them. It was only at the end of the hon. Gentleman's speech that we discovered the real reason for his strong opposition. He resented the idea that anything whatever in the National Health Service should be paid for in any way. The sacred cow must not be touched—even to dress its wounds.
The most absurd criticism was that the new scheme might make race relations more difficult. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that the new scheme will improve race relations by changing the present procedures, which are worrying to many people. The idea that the Health Service might put off people who come a long distance, especially those with black faces, is ridiculous. If they have paid £100, £200 or even more for an airline ticket, an extra £5 for insurance is negligible, and it is a wise and sensible step to take in any case.
Under the new stage 1, I hope people will be required to know their national insurance number. I wonder how many hon. Members present today know theirs. I hope that my right hon. Friend will feel that now is the time to tighten up this aspect of Health Service administration.
I make one personal comment which I hope will be treated as privileged. Twenty years after my wife left Cambridge and we had a fairly large family, she received a letter from a Cambridge doctor saying that he was retiring and that her card would be transferred to another doctor. I suppose that that old boy had been drawing his basic fee on my wife's name for 20 years. I do not resent that, but I wonder how many hundreds, thousands or even hundreds of thousands of duplications of health cards there are in the country. [HON. MEMBERS: "Was she black?"] My wife is not black. She is not even a Red Indian—thank goodness.
I turn to the important, positive and absolutely brand new part of my speech. I draw attention to recommendation 792 of the Council of Europe, passed on 18 September 1976, recommending
the institution of an international medical credit card".
It may surprise some Labour Members to know that I was chairman of the Social and Health Committee at the time it was published, but it may not surprise them to know that our activities were often more social than they were healthy. That recommendation was introduced by Mr.


Cordle, our colleague and former Member for Bournemouth, East. [Interruption.] We should give credit where credit is due.
I ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to give that recommendation his full consideration, because it is a gem that will make him even more famous than he is now if he adopts it and gets it through during his tenure of office. The idea is that throughout the 21 countries of the Council of Europe those who go abroad should have a medical credit card similar to Diners Club or American Express, or whatever the hon. Member for Isle of Ely (Mr. Freud) thinks is the most trendy credit card to brandish about these days. With this card in one's pocket, whenever one went through the Council of Europe countries—and it could be extended to other countries in Eastern Europe with which there are reciprocal arrangements—any payment for medical or hospital treatment could be dealt with on a credit card basis. I am sure that hon. Members have either personal or constituency experience of the difficulty of making a claim after returning from a holiday, when one has been ill, and having to go through the tedious formalities. If this went through, in future, in, I hope, every country of the world ultimately, an internatinal medical credit card could be used. Many of the expensive and useless procedures could be got rid of. Reciprocity is not enough. We need a simpler way of dealing with these charges.
I ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State—I shall send him a copy of the recommendation—to get some of his officials to examine it and to have discussions with insurance companies to see whether such a credit card could be instituted. If so, it would be something of which we, if we initiated it, could be justly proud.

Mr. Clement Freud: I shall not pursue the points made by the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Page) other than to mention that the idea of a medical credit card—when credit card companies demand 5 per cent. of the action, which would be £300, 000 plus administrative costs—would just about wreck the savings occasioned by the measure.
The hon. Member for Harrow, West began by congratulating the Secretary of State. I begin by commending the Opposition on the motion, which has great relevance. This evening we are being asked to approve or disapprove the abandoning of what has always been the pride of our National Health Service: the giving of free medical aid to those in need of it. We are asked to do this to save what, by all accounts, is a piddling sum of money—£6 million—and if the Secretary of State estimates that it is £6 million the sum is likely to be rather less, because Government estimates in matters like this are always on the high side.
I contend that the savings that will be achieved by asking each patient who comes to a hospital a question which must take 20 seconds per patient will be erased by the administrative costs. We know what will happen. Over the months hospital officials will become bored with asking patient after patient the same question, to which they will receive the same reply—"Yes." Eventually they will confine their questioning to people of whom they are suspicious, such as black people or anyone with a foreign accent.
If the Minister says that at a cost of £9, 000 per constituency one can conduct the questioning and

requestioning and then follow up suspicions that the first answer might not be the right answer, I should like to know how. How can all that extra work be done at so little extra cost? I do not believe that it can. For this doubtful benefit, we would lose our reputation as a generous and caring nation that worries about the health of its own and other people and provides a cure when needed.
The Secretary of State should aim at reciprocity with other nations. That would be more sensible than what is being done. It would certainly be infinitely more sensible than introducing a credit card system. It might be sensible, certainly in the case of Nigeria, if people who come here are compelled to take out insurance before they leave their native shores.
I am concerned about three fundamental aspects. First, I am concerned about overseas students. They are deeply worried. An overseas student, particularly if he is here on a short, sharp course lasting only a year, has enough on his plate. If he is made to pay for medical services. he might not go to a doctor when he should. The danger to him and the country would be substantial.
Racial discrimination has been mentioned. It will continue to be mentioned. That problem will be accentuated as the scheme progresses. The change in the system will deter early diagnosis. If there is no free Health Service, people will not go to a doctor when they should and short-term savings to the Health Service would become counter-effective because of epidemics.
My right hon. and hon. Friends take pride in our National Health Service, as I hope do many Conservative Members. We want no diminution of it. If there were genuine savings we might approve, but I do not believe that an arguable £6 million in a budget of £3, 000 million is a genuine saving. This minimal proposed saving has no overall relevance and will harm our reputation. My right hon. and hon. Friends and I will vote with the Opposition.

Mr. Robert Atkins: The abuse of the National Health Service by foreign tourists came to my attention in July 1979 when my little girl was ill and was taken to hospital, where she stayed for a couple of weeks. I discovered that the poor child next to her in hospital was of Iranian origin at the time when her country, sadly, was facing difficulties. I was moved to inquire about her position in relation to fees and other expenses.
I did not think a great deal of it, but I tabled a parliamentary question. I set out not to provoke publicity, but to seek information. Some publicity followed the tabling of the question and the answer. My mail bag expanded. I do not have to tell hon. Members that when one's mail expands to five or six letters on a subject one takes serious notice.
As a result of that I asked another parliamentary question and received a further answer. I also did a brief radio interview on the "Today" programme. Within about 10 days I had received an enormous amount of correspondence—nearly 300 letters. The vast majority of them were from doctors, nurses and administrators within the Health Service. They are the people—Labour Members may deride this, either indirectly or directly, in the context of this discussion—who face the realities of the problem day by day and know what is going on.
I want to answer some of the unpleasant and unmerited attacks and smears by Opposition spokesmen, whatever party they represent, because I believe that the sensible


decision taken by my right hon. Friend to do something about this anomaly stands happily on its own and does not merit the attacks that have been made.
It is instructive to consider the position of the Labour Government over this issue. One of my doctor correspondents sent me a copy of his correspondence in pursuit of this matter in the summer of 1978. He received a variety of replies over a period of time. First, he received a letter from the right hon. Member for Lewisham, East (Mr. Moyle), the Minister responsible for this matter in September 1978, who said:
I do not consider it likely that there is improper use of the NHS by foreign visitors, nor is it as large a problem as my correspondent believes or that there is abuse on a massive scale.
That was the view of the then Minister, despite the evidence that was being accumulated.
In a further letter in October 1978 he said that he was well aware of the problem to which my correspondent had drawn his attention only a month previously. He went on to say that under section 121 of the National Health Service Act 1977, which substantially embodied the provisions of section 17 of the National Health Service (Amendment) Act 1949, passed by a Labour Government, Ministers were empowered to make regulations under which charges could be levied on persons not ordinarily resident in Great Britain for certain services in particular circumstances as might be provided. However, no such regulations were made. That is instructive.
In May 1979, just before the general election, in a further letter from the same Department—although not from the Minister—the point was made that if it did happen that a patient from a country without reciprocal health arrangements ended up in an NHS hospital that was not authorised to treat private resident patients under section 65 of the National Health Service Act 1977, neither the hospital nor the consultant who treated that patient would have any authority to charge the patient.
In other words, there was no real attempt by the Labour Government to face their responsibilities—responsibilities which I readily admit to the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Pavia) I did not know a great deal about until I tabled the parliamentary question as a matter of interest, and as a result of the response from the people who actually know the subject at first hand. I recognise that the hon. Gentleman is well informed on matters relating to the National Health Service, but I suggest that there are people working within the Health Service at all levels who have a different view from his, and I would seek to substantiate that view.
It was unfortunate that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. Davis) said that I was being McCarthyite in the way that I raised these matters. I shall not take issue with him over that, because I do not think he really believes it. However, the Opposition say that, if nothing else, this system enhances racialism. I resent that slur. Many of my right hon. and hon. Friends will resent that suggestion. I served for nearly 10 years on the London borough of Haringey, which has similar problems to those in the area represented by the hon. Member for Brent, South, and I also served on the executive of the community relations council. I did an enormous amount of work with my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi) in that area, where there is a substantial immigrant population.
When I became the candidate for Preston, I sought to represent a constituency with a large Asian population. As most hon. Members would do in those circumstances, I have done an enormous amount of work to represent my constituents' interests. So racist am I that I was one of those Conservative Members—I make no play of this, but merely record the fact—who did not support the Government on the immigration rules. I am not one of those who can be accused on my record, actions and words of being a racist in intent. I resent the slur being put about that anyone who supports such changes is a racist.
The provision merely rectifies an anomaly that leaves us out of line with almost every country in the free world. This action does not in any way represent an attack on the Good Samaritan policy that all hon. Members broadly support. I refer to the policy of dealing with emergencies first and subsequently asking for any financial contribution that can be made. That occurs in almost every country in the free world. We could still carry out such a policy.
Judging by some of my correspondents' experiences of the system of retrieval under the Labour Government's rules, the form E111 procedure was, according to all accounts, something of a comic performance. In addition, it was often difficult to get money out of embassies, which denied any knowledge of citizens who were supposed to be in their care. However, we can retrieve some of the finance if we accept the Government's rules and proposals.
It has been suggested by the Labour and Liberal Parties that there is no abuse or that it is too small to worry about. My constituents in the North-West—and I am sure that this is true of my hon. Friends' constituents—do not consider £6 million as too small a sum to worry about. Britain has been in trouble because not enough people worry about sums such as £6 million. It does not matter whether the sum is £6 million, £60 million or £100, 000. If the situation is wrong, we should do something about it.

Mr. Edward Lyons: Is the hon. Gentleman in favour of charging foreigners for entry to our museums and art galleries? What about the subsidy of several million pounds a year to Covent Garden? Americans take great advantage of that and pay half the value of the full ticket. Does the hon. Gentleman want to try to save some of that money, too?

Mr. Atkins: I do not wish to be drawn on a separate argument, but my brief reply is that I am in favour of charges for museums and galleries. Money raised from outside users will go much of the way towards making our museums and art galleries more efficient and effective. However, given the time constraint I do not wish to take up that separate argument.
The Opposition misjudge the situation if they believe that there is no public concern, particularly among the medical profession, about the abuse that has occurred in recent years. I shall refer to some of the correspondence that I have received, but which I did not seek to provoke. Heaven alone knows that we have enough constituency problems every day without having to cope with such enormous amounts of correspondence. Of nearly 300 letters, the vast majority came from doctors, nurses and administrators. I shall make that point over and over again, because it bears repeating.
The first letter was sent by a lady in South London, who is involved in administering an ante-natal clinic in a hospital. She wrote:


One person came from Ghana. She was given an indefinite stay but went home and then came back to this country in March 1981. Her baby is due now and she says she has no money. She says she does not intend to stay here for good and will be going home in about two years. She also said that seeing as she used to live here she is entitled to maternity grant and benefits".
The same lady mentioned another case and wrote:
A lady from Nigeria came here seven months pregnant. At the same time she is only staying a year on her passport. Surely she got pregnant in her own country and none of them are working. Why shouldn't she pay for her confinement".
My hon. Friends may think that that is a fair point.
Another letter comes from a different part of the world, Yorkshire. The problem is not confined to London, where the tourists are. The correspondent wrote:
I met a young Cypriot in a cafe, who informed me that her two brothers are staying in Harrogate at the moment and that she is going to Harrogate in May in order to have her second baby. How can this be, except as I suspect, by false pretences?
Then there is the case in another part of London of a lady who came from the Ivory Coast. She stayed until June 1980 and went home for three months. She then came back to this country in October 1980. The Home Office allowed her two months' stay. She came to the ante-natal clinic in November this year, having got herself pregnant. So it goes on.
I have a letter from a senior nurse in another part of London, who said that
not only do women come here from abroad to have their babies either privately or in the NHS obstetric units, but they all receive at least one visit from the Health Visitor 10 days after the birth—in my experience they rarely leave Britain before the baby is one month old".
Now I have a classic example. It is from a higher clerical officer in an ante-natal clinic. She writes:
A couple from Brazil came over on passports stamped for 6 months. He was a private paying student, and she was five months pregnant. When told that they were not entitled to national health and that they would have to pay, the husband argued most strongly, saying that when you come to England you do not have to pay. However, he paid for a few visits and then produced a letter from his embassy saying that they were going to employ him, but would not say for how long. When I phoned the Department of Health and Social Security they said that there was nothing we could do and that they could have the baby here free of charge. They agreed with me that something fishy was going on but there was nothing that could be done. When I told the husband that they would not have to pay after all, he laughed and said we were an easy touch. He then asked for a refund on the payments he had already made.
I have given only a tiny slice of the correspondence that I have received.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: I hesitate to intervene on every case, but in most of the cases that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned the person was entitled to be here and to receive free treatment under the immigration rules. In the last case, if the Brazilian embassy's letter was correct and the man had been employed here, or had entered into employment, the DHSS advice was correct. The man is entitled to free medical treatment, and will be entitled to it under the rules that are being put forward.

Mr. Atkins: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman does not fail to recognise that the people concerned realised that they were out to "con" the British taxpayer. They themselves recognised that fact, as my correspondence suggests. If they recognised that, surely that is clear evidence. [Interruption.] It is no good Opposition Members shouting and shrieking. They know full well that they are wrong and that they made a mistake which they are trying to get out of.
I received a letter from a senior doctor in Leicestershire, who said that he was closely connected with a situation where a Portuguese resident was brought to this country with serious leg trouble, which he believed was gangrene. The man was admitted to a National Health hospital and had a leg amputated. A temporary artificial leg was fitted, and the man duly returned home. Some months later, again he visited the area on holiday, and had a final artificial leg fitted, again under the National Health Service, entirely free. These letters are from doctors, administrators and nurses who know what is going on. They recognise that this is an abuse. On this issue the British public are much more sound than the Opposition, whether Labour or Liberal.
Here is a letter from another doctor in Sheffield:
I have … personal experience of a patient presenting himself at Heathrow from Hong Kong without having had a chest X-ray and was found on X-ray at Heathrow to have open tuberculosis. He was immediately admitted to a NHS hospital, and subsequently treated at great expense for the next two years".

Mr. Edward Lyons: The hon. Gentleman has just quoted a case from Hong Kong. Before that, he quoted a case from Portugal. Is he aware that there are reciprocal arrangements with both those countries, and that in future, after these regulations, those people will still be entitled to have that treatment? One example that the hon. Gentleman gave concerned a person who was permanently settled here. Under the new regulations, all those people will remain entitled to the same treatment as before. Will he deal with people who will not be entitled to treatment?

Mr. Fowler: There is no reciprocal arrangement.

Mr. Atkins: As my right hon. Friend has rightly said, almost inaudibly, there is no reciprocal arrangement with Portugal or Hong Kong. The hon. Gentleman is wrong.

Mr. Edward Lyons: rose—

Mr. Atkins: I cannot go on giving way. Other hon. Members want to speak and they may get a chance if hon. Members stop intervening. [Interruption.] I am sorry to confuse right hon. and hon. Members opposite with the facts. They may not like them, but people throughout the country are recognising what is happening. [Interruption.] I resent interventions which suggest that anything to do with Portugal or Hong Kong involves racism. The hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) is the sort of person who stirs up racism. I take it ill from him—

Mr. John Page: He has just come in.

Mr. Atkins: He has just come in, as my hon. Friend says.
I may bore hon. Members opposite by quoting from letters from people who care. We are not talking about the average anonymous letter or the concern of people at different levels. I am quoting letters from doctors, nurses and administrators, the people who are running the National Health Service. Labour Members, with their bleeding hearts on their sleeves, pretend that they care more about society than anyone else. The letters that I am quoting are from people who face the problem at first hand and know what is going on. Opposition Members ignore at their peril—and peril it may be—what these people are saying.
One could delay the House for a long time on this, but I do not intend to do that. I conclude, therefore, by referring to two or three other letters that I have received. One, signed by eight nurses in a hospital in London, says:


Most people that I work with, in five different clinics, feel very strongly about this issue, particularly since if we or our children apply for such a service abroad we invariably must pay for it.
Point proven.
A letter from another doctor says:
We must surely be bonkers. When are we going to wake up to the situation in this country? When our people go abroad and unfortunately have to go to hospital, especially in America, we have to pay. So why are we being so soft on people coming here?
Finally, in this context I quote from a doctor who has spoken to several people in the family practitioner committee. He said that in the Bristol area the medical profession would back me in my campaign—I am sure they will back my right hon. Friend—all the way. Indeed, the British Medical Association issued a statement when the matter was raised originally, in which it said that it backed the campaign. It said:
Our policy is that payment should be enforced for medical services provided in this country for visiting nationals of those countries with which we do not have reciprocal arrangements.
The British Medical Association and its official representative body believed that there was abuse about which something had to be done.
The examples that I have given are only a tiny minority of the letters that I have had from people working in the Health Service. If they do not serve to show that there is substantial public and medical concern about the abuse to support what my right hon. Friend is doing, I do not know what more is required. The Labour Party has misjudged the mood of the nation, as it so often does. This is a necessary rectification of an anomaly which annoys many people in the medical profession and in the country as a whole. I therefore warmly welcome what my right hon. Friend is doing.

Mr. Alfred Dubs: The hon. Member for Preston, North (Mr. Atkins) referred to several examples of abuse. If he will refer to schedule 3 of the circular sent out by the DHSS last year, he will see that on the list of countries for whose citizens treatment will be provided is Portugal—along with Austria, Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia and so on. In that respect at least the hon. Member was misinformed, because we have an agreement with that country.

Mr. William Hamilton: And Hong Kong.

Mr. John Page: Would the man from Portugal be able to have his amputation and false leg free?

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: Yes.

Mr. Page: How does the hon. Gentleman know? Is he certain?

Mr. Dubs: I had said hardly more than one sentence before giving way.
The statement at the beginning of schedule 3 is:
Treatment of immediate necessity provided in respect of nationals of, and citizens of the United Kingdom and colonies resident in the following countries and territories".
Over many years we have heard many stories of what has happened to United Kingdom visitors to countries such as the United States. There have been depressing stories of treatment being refused until the individual concerned could produce enough money to pay for it. Over many

years we have prided ourselves on having a better system—treating people on the basis of their need. We have said that we shall not engage in hassles over whether they have enough money to be entitled to such treatment.
If the Secretary of State's proposals are implemented—I hope that they will not be—a different situation will prevail in the National Health Service. For example, a student from another country—say, Bangladesh—might be knocked down by a motor car and taken to hospital. As an emergency case, he can have treatment free of charge, but if he needs further treatment in the hospital—perhaps for a broken leg needing inpatient care—he will have to pay for it. If he cannot pay, is he to be discharged while still requiring treatment, or will some other arrangement be made?
The Government's reasons for their policy are, according to the Secretary of State, the saving of £6 million, the provision of what the right hon. Gentleman calls a fair system, and the lessening of alleged abuse. I believe that those of us on the Labour Benches broadly agree that the scheme is wrong in principle. It is a departure from the basis of a free NHS; it introduces a major element of discrimination against people who are not white; and in any case it will not save £6 million.
I agree that the stage 1 questions to be asked are innocuous enough. If the intention is carried out, they will be asked of everybody entering hospital for treatment. The sting is in stage 2. We do not know what the stage 2 questions will be. Naturally, there is apprehension about how stage 2 will work. The Secretary of State has cleverly introduced the scheme, but has left us all wondering what stage 2 will be all about. When we asked the right hon. Gentleman in the Select Committee on Home Affairs, he could not say, but he told us that he would present his proposals later.
In 1978 the Department of Health and Social Security looked into the matter. After all, the idea of charging is not new. It concluded:
it is likely that the administrative cost of making the additional inquiries necessary would be as great and probably greater than the revenue which would be received from charging visitors for the cost of emergency treatment.
That was the view of the Department advising the Secretary of State four years ago. When the point was put to the right hon. Gentleman in the Select Committee, he replied
We have made a better assessment now and our figures are more accurate.
What is the basis of that "more accurate" assessment that has been made more recently? The first part of the assessment is the survey carried out on behalf of the working party, to which reference has already been made. The survey found that, of 8, 152 people going for hospital treatment, 81 would have been suitable for possible further questioning if the stage 2 questioning had been available. Despite the complexity of the analysis, despite the figures and despite the detail, there is no table in the report showing how many of the 8, 152 would be liable to pay under the new arrangements. We have various tables that tend to confuse rather than to clarify. It is clear that at least half of the total of 81 would not be liable to pay on the criteria that they were working abroad as United Kingdom residents, and were returning to or living in the United Kingdom for a year.
Another set of criteria relates to the urgency of the need for treatment. There are about 44 people in that category. However, we cannot make a cross-reference between the two groups.
A third group consists of people from countries where they normally reside. Although it is clear that 15 individuals come from countries with which we have reciprocal agreements, it may well be that many of the others come under different categories.

The Minister for Health (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): The hon. Gentleman has obviously gone into the details. Therefore, he will know from the tables that 12 Americans are identified. I am trying to understand his position. Is he saying that there is something wrong in American tourists, admitted to hospital, paying for their treatment out of insurance policies that they would presumably expect to take out and that it is wrong not to expect the British taxpayer to pay for those Americans' appendicitis or other hospital treatments? Why is he so root and branch against what seems to be a perfectly sensible proposition?

Mr. Dubs: I shall deal with that point in a moment. I was seeking to test the proposition that the Secretary of State put forward: that a careful assessment showed a saving of £6 million, from the introduction of the scheme. Despite the detailed tables in the report, it is still impossible to deduce how may individuals will have to pay under the new arrangements. There cannot be many, or the Secretary of State would have been the first to present such information.
As the Minister said, the table includes 12 people from the United States. Even if every one of those had to pay, that is still only 12 out of 81 from an overall total of 8, 152. The least we could have expected from an investigation based on interviewing over 8, 000 people would have been an indication of the numbers liable to pay. That is the one figure on which the Secretary of State could have based his assesment of £6 million, but that figure does not appear.
Therefore, the Secretary of State, in a document prepared by his Department, presented to the Select Committee an alternative based on the ratio of visitors from countries with which we do not normally have reciprocal agreements as the total number of hospital patients in Britain. The document states:
Since records do not show present use of hospital services by visitors, one can only assume usage similar to that of the home population; the estimate of £6 million annually has been derived from that.
That is a rough and ready estimate. There is no supporting evidence to show the intervening stages and whether any assumptions were made about the nature of the treatment, which would exclude certain people under psychiatric treatment and so on. It is a hit and miss basis for arriving at a figure of £6 million.
The Secretary of State told the Select Committee that, of the £6 million, £1 million would be obtained by charging overseas students. There is not a shred of evidence in the report of the working party or in anything else that has come from the Secretary of State, the Minister or the DHSS to support claim that one-sixth of the total that the Health Service will allegedly obtain will come from students. More supporting evidence would be necessary for that.
Without any knowledge of how stage 2 will operate, we clearly cannot say whether it will be discriminatory. For

the life of me, I cannot understand how we can have stage 2 questioning without there being an element of discrimination in the way that it will be applied. The overwhelming view of National Health Service bodies and others, which gave evidence to the Select Committee, is that there is a danger that the new tests will be seen as discriminatory.
The Brent health district said:
Our experience suggests that the mere process of assessing eligibility is looked upon as discriminatory notwithstanding the fact that all patients are expected to submit to the test.
That is a reference to stage 1, let alone what happens under stage 2.
The Kensington, Chelsea and Westminster area health authority stated:
However carefully the rules are applied, distress and offence will inevitably be caused to some patients who are in fact entitled to treatment.
The TUC made a similar comment. The Association of Community Health Councils expressed concern, as did the West Midlands regional health authority. So did the Commission for Racial Equality. One could go on referring to various organisations and bodies, many of them directly concerned with the day-to-day administration of the National Health Service, which believe that the effect of the proposals will be discriminatory.
The next problem is the burden on National Health Service staff in administring what will prove to be a very complex system. It is not merely a matter of saying—however the details of stage 2 are worked out—that certain groups will be exempt and then discovering whether people fall into those groups. There is, for example, the question of refugees. It is by no means clear whether we are talking about people who have been granted refugee status or people who have come to this country and are applying for refugee status. What will happen to people waiting for the Home Office to confirm whether they are refugees?
Many people, who are subject to the immigration rules, have a complicated immigration status. It is difficult enough for experts in immigration law or for hon. Members, at their surgeries, to resolve the immigration status of some people who come to us for help in certain matters. Yet some of the complexities will be applied to discover whether people are exempt from the charges inherent in the new procedure. The difficulty of applying the system and the need for Health Service staff to understand it fully and to have special training makes me wonder whether the whole thing is worth while.
Another problem is what will happen to students, liable in the first year to pay, who go into hospital before they have been here a year but are not sent the bill until after the year has elapsed. They will presumably have to pay because they were ill before qualifying. There may be a large number of borderline cases. Will a person who applies for refugee status, becomes ill, and is then given refugee status get his money back retrospectively? Will he have to pay? The scheme will be difficult to apply.
Another difficulty is the sort of evidence that might be necessary. The Secretary of State has at no time denied that passports might not be helpful in enabling people to establish that they are exempt from the need to pay. It is a very short step from that proposition to the one that people will feel pressurised to produce their passports. The Minister shakes his head. People will feel that it is much


easier to come along with their passports. There will be an implicit and insidious pressure for people to come along with their passports.
The DHSS accepts the passport as evidence of entitlement to supplementary benefit. It maintains that this is part of the procedure that is supported by the Secretary of State. Many hon. Members know of constituents, fully entitled to supplementary benefit, who, having been abroad for a short period, have to go through the business of producing their passports to establish their entitlement to supplementary benefit.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: With respect to my hon. Friend, no one is bound to produce his passport. Home Office Ministers have made clear on several occasions that for no purpose whatever is anyone bound to produce his passport. At the moment people are not bound to produce passports for treatment in the National Health Service, but some are being asked to do so. It is this development that hon. Members now fear will be extended more widely.

Mr. Dubs: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. Nevertheless, letters from Ministers at the Department of Health and Social Security about passports have certainly not repudiated the practice whereby, in some instances, DHSS officers have asked for passports.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: The manual of guidance, on which my right hon. Friend said that we shall be consulting, will be issued to officers carrying out the Secretary of State's questioning. It will tell them not to ask for passports. The reason for that, apart from the sensitivity of the subject, is that it does not have much relevance. Nationality will not determine entitlement to treatment. The questions will be aimed at where the man has been living and, if he has been here for less than a year, what he is here for. That is hardly likely to be racially discriminatory. As we see from the answers, we are likely to get places such as Wyoming or Adelaide as the person's residence, and then the insurance company will pay the bill.

Mr. Dubs: I understand what the Minister has said. If that is an assurance that passports will never in any circumstances be asked for as a test of eligibility for Health Service treatment, we have not so far received such an assurance from the Secretary of State. It is helpful to have that assurance from the Minister.

Mr. William Hamilton: I have a document from the Association of Scottish Local Health Councils, which states:
The DHSS has stated that it sees no reason why people should not be asked to produce passports since there is no requirement to carry identity cards in the United Kingdom.
That is on the matter that we are now debating.

Mr. Dubs: That was my understanding of the position. I hope that we can have some further clarification of it. Certainly the Minister has made the position a little more clear than it was up to now. I hope that it represents a change of heart by his Department. If so, he is to be congratulated on having brought it about. It certainly removes one of the main anxieties—although not the only one—about the way in which this procedure will be applied.
There are obviously political disagreements between the two sides of the House on the principle of the matter.

It has not been shown convincingly that we can avoid the new practice being discriminatory or being seen to be discriminatory, especially against people whose skins are not white. It would be far better for the Government to say that their policy is to extend the number of reciprocal agreements, so that we in turn can provide free NHS treatment to visitors from abroad, and that the main thrust of our policy should be to try to achieve similar benefits for British people when they visit other countries. I hope that the Minister and the Secretary of State will think again and decide in the end not to introduce this proposal.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): Order. Before I call the next speaker, it may be for the convenience of the House if I say that I am informed that the winding-up speeches will begin at 9.35 pm and there are a number of hon. Members who wish to speak.

Sir William van Straubenzee: I shall respond to what was clearly a message and therefore make only a short speech. I appreciate that the debate is about the whole range of charges in the National Health Service for overseas visitors. However, I wish to concentrate my few remarks upon one section.
I have listened to most of the debate and have missed only one speech, about which I am sorry. It seems to me that there is more agreement than might otherwise have been supposed. There is agreement that there is some abuse, but there is probably disagreement about how much. I see the hon. Member for Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. Davis) nodding agreement. There is disagreement about whether an additional inflow of £6 million is worth it or whether that will happen. I take the view that many small savings or additional inflows is a valuable way of assisting the funding of the National Health Service and other matters about which I cannot talk this evening.
From my modest experience as a constituency Member, I know that few matters arouse more passionate hostility and anger among perfectly decent people who do not have an ounce of prejudice in their veins than the feeling of misuse of the NHS, as they believe, with the occasional actual example, by those who come from abroad. We are not talking about a free Health Service. Our constituents are paying considerably and so are their employers. We owe it to them to be extremely careful.
The group on which I wish to concentrate is overseas students. The Minister for Health's assumption of his new office gives enormous pleasure to many of his hon. Friends who admire his qualities. To him I say that I am extremely grateful for the advances that have been made insofar as they affect overseas students. I have always deeply felt that there is nothing less than a moral duty on a rich nation, which we still are in world terms, to share part of its education heritage with students from other parts of the world, preferably countries that are less well off, but also countries that as well or better off. I was therefore troubled about these charges as first proposed because they were an additional burden on the students I have in mind.
In general terms, for many years I have always doubted whether our previous system of financing overseas students was sufficiently discriminatory. I believe that, arising out of recent changes, we shall be able to make great improvements, particularly as we can afford more.


I rejoice in the fact that a student enrolling for a course lasting longer than one year will now have his medical treatment from his doctor, and other than in the first year his treatment in hospital, provided. My hon. and learned Friend must understand that many people welcome that. They are grateful for it and appreciate the care and attention that I personally know Ministers gave to this problem.
We are not completely home and dry. I would not expect us to be so until we finally see the form of the regulations that will be laid before the House. Let me illustrate the sort of thing that we must try to hammer out. It was referred to briefly by the hon. Member for Battersea, South (Mr. Dubbs). I confess that I am not clear, if I were an overseas student and required, in week 50 of my first year, hospital treatment which extended two weeks into my second year, whether I would have to pay for only two weeks or for the four weeks. I simply use the four-week illustration for ease of example. Obviously the period could be considerably longer.
My right hon. Friend fairly made the point that we would be expecting overseas visitors—in that, he must have included overseas students—to rely increasingly upon insurance cover for this liability, just as all hon. Members do when they visit countries with which we do not have a reciprocal arrangement. I do not expect my hon. and learned Friend to reply to this detailed point. I ask him to do no more than bear it in mind when he hammers out the details. I am concerned about this because insurers are at work on policies, and in the student world there is an intelligent operation run by Endsleigh Insurance which will be known to several hon. Members.
I have made careful inquiries and I believe that the company can—I truncate an elaborate matter—produce a group policy to cover this year, for £75 outside London, and £100 for inside London. [Laughter.] I do not know why hon. Members laugh. Many of us have a common interest in these matters. When considering the large sums spent by students—often at considerable sacrifice—on travel, fares and caring for themselves when in this country, that is not a massive additional sum. We must be reasonably practical even when we care deeply about a subject. I do not regard the premium as unreasonable, but it could be reduced.
The National Union of Students receives a great deal of stick—regretfully, often from the Conservative Members. I know that in matters political that stick is justified. However, for many years I have said, and will continue to say, that on matters technical relating to students the NUS can be extremely effective. Tonight's debate is, in part, a reflection of that.
The union's representations to my hon. and learned Friend and my right hon. Friends and their predecessors have been extremely responsible, well researched and technically competent. When my hon. and learned Friend replies, I hope that he will agree to listen to narrow, technical representations which might make all the difference, from whatever reputable source, and I hope that he will include Government Back Benchers.
The hon. Member for Battersea, South is right in saying that there are matters of definition and precision on which it would be enormously helpful to have more clarity.
I am happy to be making this representation to my hon. and learned Friend because he will remember that we first met when he was a distinguished officer of the Federation of Conservative Students. That illustrates how old I have

become. I am extremely sorry that his successor generation—the leadership, not the rank and file—of that splendid organisation takes such a narrow dog-in-the-manger view of its wider responsibilities to students in the National Union of Students, although we shall no doubt get that right.
I believe that my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench have materially helped in this sphere. I fully understand the problem of the one-year course students. I believe that examination will prove that a large proportion of them are studying languages. In many sub-degree courses—often overlooked in regard to overseas students—where qualifications are being obtained, the course is longer than one year. Even so, I hope my hon. and learned Friend will be receptive to representations.
My hon. and learned Friend has received a great deal of criticism, —I am not noted for saying in a smarmy way that I think my leaders are doing splendidly, though generally I do—but I say without equivocation that we have taken a great step forward and I, for one, am grateful.

Mr. Michael Meacher: I hope that the hon. Member for Wokingham (Sir W van Straubenzee) will forgive me if I do not take up his remarks on overseas students. Time is pressing and I wish to advance a rather different argument.
The central issue is the Government's motives and intentions, because it is difficult to take the Govermnent's claims at face value. There has been a great deal of discussion about the benefit of saving £6 million. If that were really the issue, the smallest attack on the black economy, which is now costing Britain between £3, 000 million and £4, 000 million a year—that is the official estimate—would provide a flow of funds for the National Health Service hundreds of times greater than the Government's puny measure.
There is no evidence of extensive abuse of the NHS by foreign tourists coming to Britain only for NHS treatment. The hon. Member for Preston, North (Mr. Atkins) quoted the results of an entirely unstructured sample that was totally unrepresentative, and the Minister knows that. The official survey suggests that in more than 99 per cent. of such cases there was no abuse. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. Davis) has shown that the degree of abuse, as reflected in the official survey, is a tiny fraction of 1 per cent. In those circumstances, how can the Government justify introducing an eligibility test for everyone applying for NHS treatment to winkle out a minuscule number of foreign tourists, a fraction of whom might be abusing the NHS?
In 1973 the Department of Health and Social Security found that the sum spent on treating visitors was only about £1 million. That was a fraction of about one-twentieth of 1 per cent. That is almost exactly what £6 million is as a fraction of £12 billion, which is the total annual cost of the NHS now. Even that figure included the cost of treating those covered by reciprocal health agreements, which are perfectly legitimate.
The administrative costs of the Government's scheme would most certainly exceed the net savings in preventing abuse. The working party estimated that the saving might be £5 million. It would be wrong to take that as a firm figure. It is uncertain what the saving will be. The working


party did not know how many persons might be deterred and how many persons might opt for private treatment, for example.
An offsetting factor is the extra cost of staffing. When I intervened in the Secretary of State's speech to advance that argument he gave an extremely unsatisfactory answer. He said that no extra staffing would be made available. However, there will be the hidden cost of transferring staff from other more worthwhile duties to implement the scheme. The scheme will involve the printing and distribution of manuals, the training of staff to use them and the printing of a vast number of extra forms. That is a curious thing for the Government to be doing when we bear in mind their concern about unnecessary official forms.
What is the Government's estimate of the total offsets? That is the relevant figure if we are to judge the real gain, if there will be one. Given that there is clearly negligible abuse and little or no net savings, what is the Government's motive? Several reports have appeared, which have not been denied, that the Government are continuing to seek ways of changing the structure of the NHS so that it rests on an insurance basis. The Government have expressed a general desire to privatise up to 25 per cent. of the NHS. Against that background it is difficult to avoid drawing the conclusion, whatever protestations may be made by the Secretary of State, that the Government's real intention is to lay down an administrative framework and to pave the way for setting up a National Health insurance scheme.
Once we have administrators checking every patient's eligibility, there will be nothing simpler than to set them to check on every patient's health insurance. A health insurance scheme could then be introduced at low cost. The Government could come to the House and say "It will cost the taxpayer hardly anything."
We are opposed to this mean-minded and petty proposal, partly because of this clear ulterior motive, but there are several other objections to the scheme. The scheme will force NHS staff into the role of immigration officers. As an hon. Member sponsored by the Confederation of Health Service Employees, I assure the Secretary of State that that is unacceptable to members of that union and, I am sure, to other NHS unions.
Paragraph 39 of the working party report states that extra staff would be required for stage 2. The Secretary of State made it clear that he would not provide extra funds. What is certain is that shortage of time and the unpleasantness of the task will lead to corners being cut in asking questions. The people who will bear the brunt of the questioning will be those with black or brown faces, with odd sounding names or with funny accents. The Secretary of State's suggestions that there will be no increase in discrimination in the National Health Service is ill founded.

Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Paragraph 39 of the report states clearly that
there should be a net gain to the NHS.
Would the hon. Gentleman regard that as inconsiderable?

Mr. Meacher: Whether there is a net gain depends on the offset of the savings. It is our view that the offset of

any savings is likely to exceed what are alleged to be the gross savings. The proposals will be an adminstrative nightmare.

Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: rose—

Mr. Meacher: Every patient will have to be checked. That will include psychiatric and geriatric patients who make up the majority of those who enter NHS hospitals.
Just for amusement I shall quote an extreme case, which will show the absurdity of the proposals. It is suggested that all cases of sexually transmitted diseases caught in Britain should be tackled free, while cases imported by the visitor should be charged. How on earth does one tell the difference? I do not have to tell the Minister that germs do not come to Britain carrying flags and passports.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: The hon. Member has produced at least six inaccuracies in the past five minutes. His last statement is wrong. Treatment of communicable diseases will be free. It does not matter where they have been contracted.
The hon. Gentleman referred to racial discrimination. The only people who will be asked stage 2 questions will be those who have said that they do not live in Britain, or have not lived here for long enough, or who arouse suspicion. In a city such as Nottingham there would be more questioning at a hospital of someone with an Australian accent who has got through stage 1 than there is likely to be of any person who has an Indian face. An Indian is more likely to live in Nottingham than anyone with a strong Australian or American accent. The hon. Gentleman's proposition that this is likely to lead to the questioning of immigrants is preposterous, and is likely to set off completely false fears.

Mr. Meacher: The hon. and learned Gentleman is wrong. If the Secretary of State is not prepared to make available extra funds and staff, there will be corner cutting in the asking of questions. Everyone will not be subjected to this procedure. It will apply, as the Minister for Health said significantly, in cases where there are suspicions. Those suspicions will depend, at least partly, on the colour of face, on accents and on other such matters.
The Government have claimed that emergency treatment will be available free to everyone. That is not the case. Only treatment in casualty and out-patient departments will be free. What will happen with emergency in-patients? Presumably, when serious cases are admitted as in-patients—as, indeed, almost all are—they will be charged at the full private rate. If that is the case, it suggests that the Government have been exceedingly misleading in suggesting that emergency treatment will be free.
Information is to be sought from the Home Office via the DHSS where there is doubt about a patient's immigration status. That could have an extremely serious effect. In certain cases it could lead to unwillingness to seek medical treatment where it was clearly needed. If a person was carrying a highly infectious disease, the implications would be extremely dangerous for the individual and for the population in general. It is a serious loophole in the proposals.
The Government claim that people who are not eligible for treatment can take out health insurance or go private, but DHSS Ministers should not be in the business of


boosting profits for private medical or insurance companies. If foreign tourists still use NHS facilities, how will simply paying for them reduce NHS waiting lists?
The Government should not expect NHS staff to do their dirty work in cracking down on immigration—that is what is about—or in reducing eligibility for NHS treatment. It is a mean-minded, petty, nasty little measure. It will not reduce racial discrimination in the NHS. It will produce negligible—if, indeed, any—net savings. It could lead to infectious illnesses remaining untreated. I hope that the House will decisively reject it.

Mr Alexander W. Lyon: In the Select Committee on Monday the Secretary of State refused to accept that £6 million was peanuts. He said that a responsible Government must consider sums of that magnitude seriously. On Wednesday, the Secretary of State for Defence, when asked about £12 million for territorial divisions, said that that sum was peanuts. It depends on one's view.
Why are the Government so concerned, considering the small saving? The only enlightenment came from the hon. Member for Preston, North (Mr. Atkins). The fiasco arises because he visited his daughter in hospital and asked questions about a patient in a neighbouring bed. We have had a build-up of popular opinion. The hon. Gentleman read out letters. People have written to him about cases, 90 per cent. of whom were eligible for free treatment, even under the old rules, and about the same proportion of whom would be eligible under the new rules. Ninety per cent. of the cases were wrongly perceived because the patients were of foreign extraction. The reaction is prejudice against their treatment.
That is the danger, above all, that worries me about the proposals. However carefully conceived stage 1 is, stage 2, which we know nothing about and which the Minister has refused to tell even the Select Committee about, will animate the prejudice against people of foreign extraction. I do not wish to pay that price to collect £6 million.
I object to the proposal on principle. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. Davis) said that there was some abuse in the proposal. The original concept of the NHS was that it would be wholly free to all, including visitors. In 1949, Nye Bevan introduced an amending Bill, because pressure had been put on him. It was put forward in the context that there would be regulations, but they were never introduced. Over the years people have tried haphazardly to implement the 1949 legislation.
In such a situation, one cannot tell people that there are rules, that for them to be treated is against those rules, and that they are therefore abusing the system. There is an abuse of the system only if people consciously try to defraud it. The Government may try to clarify the situation by introducing rules, and there might be an abuse of the system thereafter, but the Government cannot depend upon past abuses when rules have never existed.
In 1963, a circular was issued, but it has never been enforced in practice. Now every patient going into hospital will have to be asked questions. When that has been done, it may be possible for someone to study the answers and decide whether a patient is trying to deceive the NHS. The scale of the problem will therefore increase.
The hon. Member for Preston, North having returned, I can tell him that the Select Committee has a mass of

evidence from hospital administrators throughout the country. Only a few suggested that a scheme of this type was needed. The great majority said that if there was anything that they could describe as an abuse, it was on a small scale. It is, therefore, nonsense for us to take the risk—and there is a risk, whatever the Government say—of exciting racial antagonism at this difficult time merely to make a saving that the Minister cannot prove of about £6 million.

Mr. Terry Davis: I shall be brief to allow the Minister as much time as possible to reply.
I shall deal first with the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Lyon) about whether there is any abuse of the NHS. I refer my hon. Friend to what our hon. Friend the Member for Waltham Forest (Mr. Deakins) said on 8 November 1978. He explained that if visitors came to this country specifically for treatment, then unless they were within one of the categories where free treatment is provided—if they came from Common Market countries or those with reciprocal arrangements—they would be abusing the system.
I did not say that the hon. Member for Preston, North (Mr. Atkins) was racialist. I said that he was engaged in McCarthyite tactics by brandishing a file of 300 letters. As I listened to some of those letters, I formed the same opinion as my hon. Friend the Member for York. Most of those people were entitled to free treatment under the NHS and will still be entitled to it under the proposed arrangements.
There is a reciprocal arrangement with Portugal. I understand that a reciprocal arrangement with Hong Kong is about to come into effect. The gentleman from Brazil is also entitled to free treatment under the Government's proposal. A letter from the Brazilian embassy stating that he is to begin work here is sufficient. When the hon. Member for Preston, North advanced those as examples of abuse he confirmed my earlier comment.
The hon. Member for Preston, North also said that £6 million is not a small sum. He is making the same fundamental mistake that has been made by all Conservative Members. There is no truth in that figure. There is no evidence to suggest that the cost of the abuse of the NHS is £6 million or any other figure. No figure has been given. The £6 million is the Government's estimate of the revenue that could be obtained as a result of changing the rules for people who are entitled to free treatment under the present arrangements.
When I asked the Secretary of State how the £6 million had been calculated, he referred the House back to the original estimate of £5 million provided by his predecessor. That is no answer. The House and the country should know where the £5 million came from. We have had no answer from the Government. I hope that we shall get one.
As for overseas students, it has not so far been mentioned that one fifth of overseas students in this country are paid for by the Foreign Office, so one fifth of the expected £1 million revenue will still come from the British taxpayer. Indeed, the cost will be more than the £200, 000 for the cost of treatment, because insurance premiums will have to be paid by the Foreign Office, so the taxpayer will be contributing to the profits of the insurance company.
The Minister pointed out in an intervention that among those 81 people who seemed to need further questioning in the working party survey were 12 Americans. He asked whether my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, South (Mr. Dubs) thought that those 12 American tourists should pay for their appendicitis operations. He made two assumptions. We do not know whether they were tourists, nor do we know for what conditions they were being treated in National Health Service hospitals.
The Minister cannot tell us whether they had lived in the United Kingdom for more than one year. He cannot say whether any of them were American students who had been studying at college or university here for more than a year. There is no proof that there were 12 Americans covered by the survey who would not have paid charges in the past but who would pay charges in the future. The Minister does not know whether they were treated for measles or food poisoning. Perhaps they were all tourists suffering from food poisoning, for which treatment will be free under the Government's proposals.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: Only as out-patients.

Mr. Davis: There will be no charge for out-patients who go to accident or emergency departments, but there will be charges for patients admitted to hospital as a result of accidents. In other words, if an overseas visitor is involved in a car accident and suffers a cut face, he will receive free treatment whatever his origin, but if he is so seriously injured that he is unconscious and is taken to hospital with broken legs or a fractured skull the Government want to charge him for the treatment. The more seriously a person is injured, the more likely he is to be charged by the Government.
The Government should concentrate on concluding reciprocal arrangements with other countries. In 1978, we were told that the Labour Government had begun such discussions with the American and Canadian Governments. What has happened to those discussions in the past three years?
I am prepared to agree that there may be some abuse, although we do not know how much. We know, however, that there are other abuses. If the Government are so concerned about abuse of the Health Service, what are they doing about the abuses for which there is evidence? For example, the Government's own auditors have found abuse by consultants in the Greenwich and Bexley area health authority who have been charging private patients for National Health Service facilities but not passing the money on to the NHS. That is the kind of abuse that the Government should tackle.

The Minister for Health (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): I well understand that there may be concern about the apparent complexities of this issue, in view of the wide range of visitors who come here, but I think that the Opposition have gone in not just for misunderstanding complexities, which at times is understandable and which I might presume myself, but for absurd exaggeration of their case. By the time we reached the speech of the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher), the whole exercise was supposed to be a sinister plot to abolish the

free Health Service for British residents—having heard on the way about a new drive against illegal immigration, new attempts to undermine race relations and so on.
As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said in opening the debate, this is a perfectly commonsense measure which does not give rise to any of those fanciful fears and will be widely appreciated by the British public once it is understood. It has one simple aim, which should command universal support, and that is to obtain more resources for the National Health Service. It is not a vast amount of money, but the National Health Service is not so awash with money that £6 million can be lightly waved aside as the Opposition did.
That worthwhile, modest sum will be achieved by introducing arrangements whereby certain treatment for short-term overseas visitors—the bulk of whom are usually described as tourists—should be paid for by their insurance companies, assuming that they take out an insurance policy, and not by the British taxpayer. That seems a sensible proposition.
The hon. Members for York (Mr. Lyon) and for Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. Davis) seemed to imply that we should run some kind of international free Health Service, regardless of the figures in the report. They never gave a clear answer to my question: if a Texan oil man comes here and is taken ill with appendicitis, do the Opposition believe that the British taxpayer should pay, or that an American insurance company should pay? We say that an American insurance company should pay, and I think that most people would agree with that.
Nevertheless, the Government believe that if this matter is not handled carefully odd difficulties will arise, as in some of the cases that have been described. For that reason we have taken particular care on the subject of racial discrimination. The Opposition missed the point that one of the things that the working party uncovered was that the existing arrangements give rise to serious risk of racial discrimination. Those arrangements were tolerated by the previous Government, and the Opposition wish to leave them alone, despite their present and proven risk of racial discrimination. We have devised arrangements that will avoid that risk. To accuse my hon. Friend the Member for Preston, North (Mr. Atkins), or my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Fowler), or myself, or any other hon. Member who has spoken in the debate of being in favour of racial discrimination is absurd and insulting.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Sir W. van Straubenzee) was concerned about students. The Government were also worried about the effects of the original proposals on students. That is why we have gone so far to make considerable concessions and we will meet all the costs of students, except for their first year hospital charges. My hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham appreciates, as the hon. Member for the Isle of Ely (Mr. Freud) does not, that students coming here on long-term courses could go on to their general practitioner's list and obtain medical treatment. I accept the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham about those on short-term language courses, and shall examine it.
It should be taken for granted, although it is not, that we will ensure that patients are not refused treatment for accidents or emergencies and that they will have free out-patient treatment. We shall also give free treatment for communicable diseases, wherever they have been contracted. The spirit that has been described as the "spirit


of the Good Samaritan" should exist within the National Health Service. That will be retained intact and is not threatened by our proposals.
In short, the British taxpayer will say "What a sensible way of getting a few million pounds extra for the NHS. Why on earth was this not done before? What on earth are the Opposition getting so excited about? Why do they feel it is so easy to waive aside this sum of money?" My right hon. Friend explained how we arrived at this sum of money. It is not a precise estimate; nobody has ever said that it is. However one arrives at it, and my right hon. Friend gave two methods of doing so, it seems to be about right and is probably a slight underestimate.
The Government accept that we are probably talking in terms of only about 0·5 per cent. of the patients in hospitals. Those patients are included in the 4·6 million people who come to this country in any one year—short-term overseas visitors who are not covered by European Community or reciprocal agreements. I shall not relate the arguments advanced by my right hon. Friend, but the figure of 0·5 per cent. gives about £6 million, which will be new income for the National Health Service and will go to the district health authorities.
That sum of £6 million was described by the hon. Member for the Isle of Ely as "piffling" and by the hon. Member for York as "peanuts". In the context of the National Health Service it is neither piffling nor peanuts. If Opposition Members wish to know, I can give a few examples of why we are so concerned about £6 million. It would enable the NHS to treat 8, 000 more acute patients, or provide 200 hospital new beds, or run 40 body scanners for a year, or provide 400 new residential places for the elderly, or 350 new residential places for the adult mentally handicapped, or new residential places for mentally handicapped children. That is not piffling and the British public will not appreciate why the Opposition are not interested in that, but prefer to provide free treatment for Australians who are involved in road accidents in this country, rather than looking at the kinds of facilities that £6 million could provide.
The hon. Member for Isle of Ely said that the administrative costs would outweigh all this—

Mr. Edward Lyons: The Minister refers solely to Australians and Americans, but what about the large number of elderly persons coming to visit ethnic minorities in this country and to see their children and grandchildren? Many of them will be too old to come with any insurance scheme and cannot be insured. Is not the proposal an attempt to raise money mainly from elderly people in the Third world, and not from Americans, Europeans and others, who will come insured?

Mr. Clarke: For some reason, hon. Members who are interested in race relations keep trying to make that case. I do not mind their being so sensitive about race relations, but they have chosen the wrong subject. The nationalities that emerged in the working party report were American, Australian and Nigerian. Dependants of people resident here will be exempt from the arrangements when they are here. We are talking about £6 million and about charging short-term visitors, who will probably be tourists.
Administrative costs have been criticised. Comments have been made about the administrative complexities and the dangers that could arise. The administrative costs were estimated by the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr.

Pavitt). He said that he did not usually go in for figures. There was a flaw in his figures. He made the preposterous suggestion that the three simple questions in stage 1 questioning would take two minutes to administer. The questions will be put mainly to ordinary British residents, who will answer "Yes. Yes. Yes." The 20 seconds suggested by the hon. Member for Brent, South were wildly divorced from reality.
The working party membership included senior National Health Service administrative officers who have expertise in the subject. On the basis of their inquiries it was decided that stage 1 with the three simple questions, would require no extra staff. They decided that stage 2 could be implemented without any significant extra cost. The only increase in cost would be for hospitals with a large number of overseas visitors—such as some of the London hospitals—where additional costs might be involved. We are talking about perhaps half a staff post. The £6 million that we hope to gain vastly outweighs any administrative costs.
The administrative process has been attacked in various ways on the basis that it will be racially discriminatory. It is suggested that it might allow COHSE members to use it as a new drive against illegal immigration.
The hon. Member for Stechford described the first stage as being the interrogation of patients. We are talking about adding three questions to the existing process for registration at a hospital. We are asking difficult questions such as "What is your name? What is your address? What appears to be the matter?" Other questions are also asked when a person is registered for hospital treatment. Three additional questions are to be asked. Almost all the patients will find them straightforward. The clerical officer will not be allowed to challenge the answers. He will merely record the answers. There is no question of cross-examination.
As the working party report shows, the bulk of the answers will be "Yes. Yes. Yes." Only a few people will move to the second stage. Most of them will be Americans, Australians or Nigerians, who will cheerily say "No". The only question required at that stage will be "Where do you live?" An address in Wyoming, for instance, will be given and arrangements will be made to collect money through an insurance company. Most people admitted to hospital will have taken the prudent step of taking out insurance.
There might be some difficult cases. There might be language difficulties and some people will be from the ethnic minorities. Most of the people questioned at the second stage will say that they have not been living in the country for the requisite period. The people from countries with reciprocal agreements and from the European Community will be identified. Only a few of the others are likely to give rise to any difficulty.
As I have said, Conservative Members are highly sensitive—as sensitive as the other Opposition Members—to any suggestion that will introduce racial discrimination into any aspect of the Health Service. We have become particularly sensitive because it was Conservative policy which threw up the evidence that there is racial discrimination in the existing arrangements which the Opposition want to keep going and keep sacrosanct.
We have, therefore, decided that to make sure that there will be no difficulties, a clear manual of guidance will be issued for the more senior staff carrying out the second


should not do. That will be before the House, because we will be consulting widely upon it. The regulations on which the whole thing is founded will be before the House and we will consult bodies such as the Commission for Racial Equality, representatives of ethnic minorities, and so on, to make sure that we do not introduce any racially discriminatory procedure. There is really no reason at all why we should, because all that the second stage will be seeking to establish is the residence of the person in question and how long he has been here. If he has been here for less than 12 months we need to establish why he is here. If he is here to work, and in the one or two other cases that have been described, he will still get treatment free.
The hon. Member for Stechford was quite right. Nationality does not have any bearing on eligibility for National Health Service treatment in Britain. Therefore, there is no point in asking for somebody's passport, because in most cases his nationality will not be relevant. I repeat what I said to the hon. Member for Battersea, South (Mr. Dubs) that the manual of guidance will contain instructions to people carrying out the second stage that they are not to ask for passports and people are not to be required to produce them.
That again will be an improvement on the present position, which is being defended by the hon. Members for Battersea, South and for Stechford. The working party discovered that misguided staff have been left so much in the dark by the Labour Party in their previous years of administering the present system that they are asking for passports.
The present system, for which the Labour Party was responsible and is now defending, is largely administered on the intuition of the administrators, who often do not understand the rules. They tend to question people who give foreign addresses or who have a foreign appearance, and that must mean that they are largely questioning black or brown people. Our manual of guidance, which the Opposition are resisting and which presumably they are about to vote against because it is part of our policy, will for the first time establish—unless the Opposition are successful—that people are not to ask for passports when deciding elegibility.

Mr. Dubs: Will the Minister concede that there is not one member of the Labour Party who has ever defended a system that demands the production of passports as a test of eligibility for Health Service treatment?

Mr. Clarke: I accept that no member of the Labour Party has done that deliberately. Every member of the Labour Party who has spoken in this debate has done so by accident, because the Opposition are defending the present position. What we are putting forward is a system with a manual of guidance which says that it is not to happen. It may be that there is a dawning of understanding and we are coming so close to each other in principle that the Division need never happen.
During the last two minutes let me try to make that clear by getting away from the fanciful fears that I have largely answered by illustrating what will be the actual situation that these rules will produce. They will change the situation of tourists in this country. That is the largest group of people who will be affected. Tourists will ask

their travel agents about the health arrangements of the United Kingdom.
At the moment they get a pleasant surprise, because they are told that the chances are that it will be free in Britain, unlike anywhere else in the world. They will in future take out an insurance policy, just as we do when we go to America or Australia. That is a sensible arrangement. We will table the regulations to introduce the scheme soon. We hope to introduce it in October, so as not to surprise this year's summer visitors. We hope that the £6 million extra for the Health Service will be wisely spent by the health authorities.

Question put,  That the original words stand part of the Question:—

The House divided: Ayes 226, Noes 295.

Division No. 94]
[10 pm


AYES


Abse, Leo
Dunn, James A.


Adams, Allen
Dunnett, Jack


Allaun, Frank
Eadie, Alex


Alton, David
Eastham, Ken


Anderson, Donald
Edwards, R. (W'hamptn S E)


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Ellis, R. (NE D'bysh're)


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)


Ashton, Joe
English, Michael


Atkinson, N. (H'gey)
Evans, loan (Aberdare)


Bagier, GordonA.T.
Evans, John (Newton)


Barnett.Guy (Greenwich)
Ewing, Harry


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (H'wd)
Field, Frank


Beith, A.J.
Fitch, Alan


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Flannery, Martin


Bennett, Andrew (St'Kp'tN)
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)


Bidwell, Sydney
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Ford, Ben


Boothroyd, MissBetty
Forrester, John


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Foster, Derek


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Foulkes, George


Brown, Ronald W. (H'ckn'yS)
Fraser, J. (Lamb'th, N'w'd)


Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)
Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald


Buchan, Norman
Freud, Clement


Callaghan, Jim (Midd't'n&amp;P)
Garrett, John (Norwich S)


Campbell, Ian
George, Bruce


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Canavan, Dennis
Ginsburg, David


Cant, R. B.
Golding, John


Carmichael, Neil
Grant, George (Morpeth)


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)


Cartwright, John
Hamilton, W. W. (C'tral Fife)


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Hardy, Peter


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (B'stol S)
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter


Cohen, Stanley
Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith


Coleman, Donald
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.
Haynes, Frank


Conlan, Bernard
Healey, Rt Hon Denis


Cowans, Harry
Heffer, Eric S.


Cox, T. (W'dsw'th, Toot'g)
Hogg, N. (EDunb't'nshire)


Craigen, J. M. (G'gow, M'hill)
HomeRobertson, John


Crowther, Stan
Homewood, William


Cryer, Bob
Hooley, Frank


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Horam, John


Cunningham, DrJ. (W'h'n)
Howells, Geraint


Dalyell, Tam
Huckfield, Les


Davidson, Arthur
Hughes, Mark (Durham)


Davies, Rt Hon Denzill (L'lli)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Hughes, Roy (Newport)


Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Janner, Hon Greville


Davis, Terry (B'ham, Stechf'd)
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas


Deakins, Eric
Johnson, James (Hull West)


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Jones, Rt Hon Alec (Rh'dda)


Dixon, Donald
Jones, Barry (East Flint)


Dobson, Frank
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Dormand, Jack
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Douglas, Dick
Kerr, Russell


Dubs, Alfred
Kilroy-Silk, Robert


Duffy, A. E. P.
Lambie.David






Lamborn, Harry
Rooker, J. W.


Lamond, James
Roper, John


Leadbitter, Ted
Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)


Leighton, Ronald
Rowlands, Ted


Lestor, MissJoan
Ryman, John


Lewis, Arthur (N'ham NW)
Sever, John


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Sheerman, Barry


Litherland, Robert
Sheldon, Rt Hon R.


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Lyon, Alexander (York)
Short, Mrs Renée


Lyons, Edward (Bradf'dW)
Silkin, Rt Hon J. (Deptford)


McDonald, DrOonagh
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)


McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Skinner, Dennis


McKelvey, William
Smith, Rt Hon J. (N Lanark)


MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Snape, Peter


McNamara, Kevin
Soley, Clive


McTaggart, Robert
Spearing, Nigel


McWilliam, John
Spriggs, Leslie


Marks, Kenneth
Stallard, A. W.


Marshall, D (G'gowS'ton)
Steel, Rt Hon David


Marshall, DrEdmund (Goole)
Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Stoddart, David


Martin, M (G'gowS'burn)
Stott, Roger


Maxton, John
Strang, Gavin


Maynard, MissJoan
Straw, Jack


Meacher, Michael
Summerskill, HonDrShirley


Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Mikardo, Ian
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)
Tilley, John


Mitchell, R.C. (Soton Itchen)
Torney, Tom


Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Urwin, Rt Hon Tom


Morris, Rt Hon C, (O'shaw)
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Wainwright, E. (Dearne V)


Morton, George
Walker, Rt Hon H. (D'caster)


Moyle, Rt Hon Roland
Watkins, David


Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick
Wellbeloved.James


Newens, Stanley
Welsh, Michael


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
White, Frank R.


O'Neill, Martin
White, J. (G'gow Pollok)


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Whitehead, Phillip


Owen, Rt Hon Dr David
Whitlock, William


Palmer, Arthur
Wigley, Dafydd


Park, George
Williams, Rt Hon A. (S'sea W)


Parker, John
Williams, Rt Hon Mrs (Crosby)


Parry, Robert
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Pavitt, Laurie
Wilson, Rt Hon Sir H. (H'ton)


Pendry, Tom
Wilson, William (C'try SE)


Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)
Winnick, David


Price, C. (Lewisham W)
Woodall, Alec


Race, Reg
Woolmer, Kenneth


Richardson, Jo
Wright, Sheila


Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Young, David (Bolton E)


Roberts, Allan (Bootle)



Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)
Mr. Hugh McCartney and


Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)
Mr. James Tinn.




NOES


Aitken, Jonathan
Boyson, Dr Rhodes


Alexander, Richard
Braine, SirBernard


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Bright, Graham


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Brinton, Tim


Aspinwall, Jack
Brotherton, Michael


Atkins, Robert (Preston N)
Brown, Michael (Brigg&amp;Sc'n)


Atkinson, David (B'm'th, E)
Browne, John (Winchester)


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Bruce-Gardyne, John


Banks, Robert
Bryan, Sir Paul


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Buck, Antony


Bendall, Vivian
Budgen, Nick


Benyon, Thomas (A'don)
Bulmer, Esmond


Benyon, W. (Buckingham)
Burden, SirFrederick


Best, Keith
Butcher, John


Bevan, David Gilroy
Cadbury, Jocelyn


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Carlisle, John (LutonWest)


Biggs-Davison, SirJohn
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Blackburn, John
Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (R'c'n)


Bonsor, SirNicholas
Chalker, Mrs. Lynda


Boscawen, HonRobert
Channon, Rt. Hon. Paul


Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W)
Chapman, Sydney





Churchill, W.S.
Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldf'd)


Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th, S'n)
Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Hunt, David (Wirral)


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Clegg, SirWalter
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Cockeram, Eric
Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)


Colvin, Michael
Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick


Cope, John
JohnsonSmith, Geoffrey


Cormack, Patrick
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Corrie, John
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith


Costain, SirAlbert
Kaberry, SirDonald


Cranborne, Viscount
Kellett-Bowman, MrsElaine


Critchley, Julian
Kershaw, SirAnthony


Crouch, David
Kimball, SirMarcus


Dean, Paul (NorthSomerset)
King, Rt Hon Tom


Dickens, Geoffrey
Knight, MrsJill


Dorrell, Stephen
Knox, David


Douglas-Hamilton, LordJ.
Lamont, Norman


Dover, Denshore
Lang, Ian


Dunn, Robert (Dartford)
Langford-Holt, SirJohn


Durant, Tony
Latham, Michael


Dykes, Hugh
Lawrence, Ivan


Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel


Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)
Lee, John


Eggar, Tim
LeMarchant, Spencer


Elliott, SirWilliam
Lennox-Boyd, HonMark


Emery, Sir Peter
Lester, Jim (Beeston)


Eyre, Reginald
Lews, Kennelh (Rutland)


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Lloyd, Ian (Havant&amp; W'loo)


Fairgrieve, SirRussell
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Faith, MrsSheila
Loveridge, John


Farr, John
Luce, Richard


Fell, SirAnthony
Lyell, Nicholas


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
McCrindle, Robert


Finsberg, Geoffrey
Macfarlane, Neil


Fisher, SirNigel
MacGregor, John


Fletcher, A. (Ed'nb'ghN)
McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)


Fletcher-Cooke, SirCharles
McNair-Wilson, P. (NewF'st)


Fookes, Miss Janet
McQuarrie, Albert


Forman, Nigel
Madel, David


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Major, John


Fox, Marcus
Marland, Paul


Fraser, Rt Hon Sir Hugh
Marlow, Antony


Fry, Peter
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Mates, Michael


Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)
Maude, Rt Hon Sir Angus


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Mawby, Ray


Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Glyn, Dr Alan
Mayhew, Patrick


Goodhart, SirPhilip
Mellor, David


Goodhew, SirVictor
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Goodlad, Alastair
Miller, Hal (B'grove)


Gorst, John
Mills, Iain (Meriden)


Gow, Ian
Mills, Peter (West Devon)


Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
Miscampbell, Norman


Gray, Hamish
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Greenway, Harry
Moate, Roger


Griffiths, E. (B'ySt.Edm'ds)
Molyneaux, James


Griffiths, Peter Portsm'thN)
Monro, SirHector


Grist, Ian
Montgomery, Fergus


Gummer, JohnSelwyn
Moore, John


Hamilton, Hon A.
Morgan, Geraint


Hamilton, Michael (Salibury)
Morris, M. (N'hampton S)


Hampson, Dr Keith
Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)


Hannam, John
Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)


Haselhurst, Alan
Mudd, David


Hastings, Stephen
Murphy, Christopher


Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Myles, David


Hawksley, Warren
Neale, Gerrard


Hayhoe, Barney
Needham, Richard


Heath, Rt Hon Edward
Nelson, Anthony


Heddle, John
Neubert.Michael


Henderson, Barry
Newton, Tony


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Nott, Rt Hon John


Hicks, Robert
Onslow, Cranley


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.


Hogg, HonDouglas (Gr'th'm)
Osborn, John


Holland, Philip (Carlton)
Page, John (Harrow, West)


Hooson, Tom
Page, Richard (SW Herts)


Hordern, Peter
Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil






Parris, Matthew
Stanley, John


Patten, Christopher (Bath)
Steen, Anthony


Pawsey, James
Stewart, A. (ERenfrewshire)


Penhaligon, David
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Peyton, Rt Hon John
Stokes, John


Pink, R.Bonner
Stradling Thomas, J.


Pollock, Alexander
Tapsell, Peter


Porter, Barry
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Powell, Rt Hon J.E. (S Down)
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Temple-Morris, Peter


Price, SirDavid (Eastleigh)
Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.


Prior, Rt Hon James
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Proctor, K. Harvey
Thompson, Donald


Pym, Rt Hon Francis
Thome, Neil (IlfordSouth)


Rathbone, Tim
Thornton, Malcolm


Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Rees-Davies, W. R.
Townsend, Cyril D, (B'heath)


Renton, Tim
Trippier, David


RhodesJames, Robert
Trotter, Neville


RhysWilliams, Sir Brandon
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Ridley, HonNicholas
Vaughan, DrGerard


Ridsdale, SirJulian
Viggers, Peter


Rifkind, Malcolm
Waddington, David


Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey
Waldegrave, HonWilliam


Roberts, M. (Cardiff NW)
Walker, Rt Hon P.(W'cester)


Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Walker, B. (Perth)


Rossi, Hugh
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir D.


Rost, Peter
Wall, SirPatrick


Royle, SirAnthony
Waller, Gary


Sainsbury, HonTimothy
Walters, Dennis


St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.
Ward, John


Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Warren, Kenneth


Shaw, Giles (Scarborough)
Watson, John


Shelton, William (Streatham)
Wells, Bowen


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Shepherd, Richard
Wheeler, John


Silvester, Fred
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Sims, Roger
Wickenden, Keith


Skeet, T. H. H.
Wiggin, Jerry


Smith, Dudley
Williams, D. (Montgomery)


Speed, Keith
Winterton, Nicholas


Speller, Tony
Wolfson, Mark


Spence, John
Young, SirGeorge (Acton)


Spicer, Jim (WestDorset)
Younger, Rt Hon George


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)



Sproat, Iain
Tellers for the Noes:


Squire, Robin
Mr. Anthony Berry and


Stainton, Keith
Mr. Carol Mather.


Stanbrook, Ivor

Question accordingly negatived.

Question,  That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 32 (Questions on amendments) and agreed to.

Main Question, as amended, agreed to.

Resolved, 
That this House welcomes a commonsense and fair measure to raise extra income for the National Health Service from charging overseas visitors for hospital treatment, which lifts the burden from the British taxpayer and avoids the possibility of racial discrimination in the present hospital admission procedures.

STANDING ORDER NO. 40 (COMMITTAL OF BILLS)

Ordered, 
That, for the remainder of the present Session, Standing Order No. 40 (Committal of bills) shall have effect as if there were inserted, in line 8, after the word 'committee', the words, 'or to a special standing committee', and in line 11, after the word 'Member', the words, 'or in the case of a motion to commit a bill to a special standing committee by a Minister of the Crown.'—[Mr. Pym.]

SPECIAL STANDING COMMITTEES

Ordered, 
That—

(1) A special standing committee to which a bill has been committed under the provisions of Standing Order No. 40 (Committal of bills) shall have power during a period not exceeding 28 days, excluding periods when the House is adjourned for more than two days, from the committal of the bill, to send for persons, papers and records and to hold up to four morning sittings of not more than two and a half hours each. The first such sitting shall be in private and the remainder, except as the Committee order otherwise, shall be for the purpose of hearing oral evidence and shall be in public. The oral evidence shall be printed in the Official Report together with such written evidence as the committee may order to be so printed.
(2) For the sittings referred to in paragraph (1) of this Order, and notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 61(1) (Chairmen of standing committees) and Standing Order No. 65(1) (Procedure in standing committees)—

(i) Mr. Speaker shall appoint any Member other than a Minister of the Crown as chairman of a special standing committee;
(ii) the chairman shall be included in calculating the quorum of the committee.

(3) When a special standing committee has completed consideration of a Bill, the chairman shall put the question, 'That I do report the Bill to the House' unless a Minister of the Crown shall move 'That the Committee do now adjourn'. If such a motion is made, the question theron shall be put forthwith and, notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 64 (Meetings of standing committees), may be decided after One o'clock.
(4) If the question is agreed to, the committee shall meet again on the day and at the hour named by the chairman to consider any amendments which may be moved by a Minister of the Crown which

(a) arise from undertakings given by Ministers of the Crown during previous sittings of the committee;
(b) are consequent upon previous decisons of the committee;
(c) have been shown to be necessary during the committee's proceedings.

(5) If the proceedings have not been concluded before the end of two and a half hours the Chairman shall interrupt them and put the question 'That I do report the Bill to the House', unless on a motion made by a Minister of the Crown, on which the question shall be put forthwith, the Committee agree that further consideration of the Bill be adjourned, or that the debate be adjourned.
(6) The day and hour of any further sitting shall be named by the chairman, and the provisions of paragraph (5) shall apply thereto.
(7) Except as provided in the foregoing paragraphs, the Standing Orders relating to standing committees shall apply to any special standing committee.—[Mr. Pym.]

Orders of the Day — Voluntary-aided and Controlled Schools

Motion made, and Question proposed,  That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Gummer.]

Mr. John Butcher: In these sensitive days—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): Order. Perhaps the lion. Gentleman will wait a moment while the Chamber clears.

Mr. Butcher: In these sensitive days I should begin by declaring a sort of interest in the subject of voluntary-aided and controlled schools, in that I have two children who attend a Church of England infants school. I am much satisfied with the education that they are receiving.
Having said that, I should concentrate on the proper contribution that Church schools make to education provision in the United Kingdom, both in the physical and material sense and in the moral, if not even spiritual, sense. To do this I should like to cite the example of the provision made in the city of Coventry by Church schools. I am delighted to report that we have an above-average number of Church schools, probably as a result of fairly large immigration into the city of people from Ireland in the late 1940s and early 1950s.
The result is that 17 per cent. of primary school places in the city are now provided by Roman Catholic schools and 6·6 per cent. by Church of England schools, giving a total of 7, 200 places in addition to the 25, 500 totally funded by the local education authority. At secondary level 18·5 per cent. of the places are provided by Roman Catholic schools and 3 per cent. by Church of England schools.
Surely in these days, when education budgets are constricted, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science does not need to be reminded of the important financial contribution that those schools make in the 15 per cent. of initial building costs that they provide. When repairs and maintenance budgets are being reduced—or being made more efficient, should I say?—the maintenance of the external fabric of a building can cost a considerable sum.
Moving on to the broad issue of the subject of tonight's debate, I should like first to refer to a booklet entitled "The Catholic School", published in 1977, which says on page 22:
The Catholic school community…is an irreplaceable source of service, not only to the pupils and its other members, but also to society. Today especially one sees a world which clamours for solidarity and yet experiences the rise of new forms of individualism. Society can take note from the Catholic school that it is possible to create true communities out of a common effort for the common good. In the pluralistic society of today the Catholic school, moreover, by maintaining an institutional Christian presence in the academic world, proclaims by its very existence the enriching power of the faith as the answer to the enormous problems which afflict mankind. Above all, it is called to render a humble loving service to the Church by ensuring that she is present in the scholastic field for the benefit of the human family.
In the Durham report the following observations are made:
It is a Christian's concern for the wholeness of the human being, for the quality of the common life, for the direction in which man goes that turns him towards education now and sets

him inside it and will not let him disengage…We are in, and will remain in, education because that is where we belong. The pursuit of truth and the imparting of it are very much our business, as are the healthy enlargement of men's minds and personalities and the creation of truly human relationships and communities.
No reasonable hon. Gentleman would disagree with those very noble and laudable words.
In my six years as a member of the Birmingham city education committee and three years as its vice-chairman, there were rarely any arguments about the role of Church schools. Indeed, parents often demanded of me that we should keep politics out of education. We did our best to do that and I am reminded that we used to say there were three major political parties in Birmingham; members of the Conservative and Labour Parties and members of the education committee. Sadly, politics is intervening more and more in education and I am afraid to report, even in the role of Church schools, that a rather vituperative political dimension is being added.
The education system in Britain comprises a variety of schools to meet the needs and aspirations of a variety of children. I include in that total system the independent schools that are under open attack from the Labour party and muted attack from the Social Democrats.
However, I wish to concentrate tonight on the voluntary sector and, particularly, on the major part of it—Church schools. They are also under attack, especially from the Labour Party at local level and by some Labour councillors—the people who implement Labour's education policy. It is a part of Labour's overall policy to be against any sort of independence, even semi-independence, in education. It would simply have the schools totally controlled by the State.
Voluntary schools are most excellent where we can observe the benefits of less State control, and of the input from foundations and persons dedicated to good education, without any axe to grind beyond that of ensuring that good education is available in their schools. Church schools are particularly well known for their insistence on good discipline, moral standards and, of course, teaching of religion. When there is general agreement today that standards of behaviour and discipline leave much to be desired, it would be utter stupidity to destroy these havens of such good behaviour and discipline.
Of course, the hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock) is shrewd enough to appreciate the electoral liability of alienating the millions of voters who support Church schools, many of whom use them. He must be particularly concerned at the growing antipathy of the Catholic vote when they see their schools under threat. Nevertheless, whether he likes it or not, Labour is increasingly adopting an anti-Church schools attitude, not least in London.

Mr. Harry Greenway: My hon. Friend mentioned the hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock). Is he aware that in the London borough of Ealing, which I represent, in a three-tier system there are five Church of England lower schools, three Church of England middle schools and, up to two years ago, there was no Church of England high school? The Church and people of Ealing set out to establish such a school. The hon. Member for Bedwellty visited Ealing more than once, speaking vituperatively and aggressively against the establishment of that school. The National Executive


Committee of the Labour Party did its utmost, in every possible way, to prevent the Church of England from establishing a new Church of England school in Ealing, to the eternal shame of the Labour Party in Britain. That must not be forgotten, and it occurred only two years ago. I am happy to say that the battle has been won and the school established.

Mr. Butcher: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. If something should come out of this debate, I hope it will be an assiduous investigation in constituencies throughout the land into the attitude of local Labour Parties towards denominational schools.
The London Labour Party produced a draft manifesto in preparation for the last GLC elections. That was prepared in September 1980 and Labour proposed policies in that document to curtail the rights of voluntary schools, reduce their intakes and, eventually, eliminate them altogether. Of course, such policies are wrapped up in party jargon. A passage states:
We deplore the attitude of those voluntary schools which seek to retain an element of selection in their intake and we intend to ensure that these schools bear a fair share of any reductions in size resulting from falling rolls.
Another says:
No child should be educationally segregated by virtue of his or her sex, religious, ethnic, or socio-economic status".
What that means, among other things, is that a Catholic school may not select children for that school on the grounds of their being Catholic. Further on, the document says:
In order to further the spirit of a fully comprehensive education service, the status, pupil selection system, and role of the voluntary school sector should be completely reviewed with the aim of ending all selectivity".
That again is a euphemism for saying that a Church school may not select admissions—not even on grounds of Church commitment. It is interesting that almost identical policies came out some months later at the Easter conference of the National Union of Teachers in 1981 as a motion submitted by the Lewisham branch of the union. It was a long motion listing five ways in which Church schools should be made "more accountable", as the motion put it. It sought to prevent Church affiliation from being a criterion for admission of pupils. It sought to have the local authority control three quarters of the governors. It sought to prevent religious affiliation being a factor in appointing staff. It sought to prevent the proportion of pupils in voluntary schools increasing in any area.
So seriously did the Catholic Church take this threat that the diocese of Westminster circulated all its Catholic schools with the terms of the motion and a point by point answer to it. The diocese makes the valid point that in some areas there have never been enough Catholic school places to meet the demand from the local Catholic population. Falling numbers of children, including those among the Catholic community, mean that by retaining the same number of Catholic school places, the demand from the Catholic community can at last be met. Those who, in the past, have been unable to find a Catholic place can now do so. In other areas, where the supply of Catholic places has in the past matched demand, the diocese rightly concedes that places will need to be taken out of use as that demand falls.
This is the major onslaught on the Catholic schools at present.

Mr. J. F. Pawsey: My hon. Friend makes a valid point. He speaks without bias. He is not a member of the Catholic faith, although he is a well-known and respected member of the Church of England. It is fair to say that Church of England schools also play a prominent part in the life of the educational system and denominational schools. There are many good Church of England schools. Will my hon. Friend agree that those Church of England schools are also directly under threat from Opposition Members, including the hon. Member for Bedwellty, (Mr. Kinnock)?

Mr. Butcher: I am much obliged to my hon. Friend. I would not like to go against moves towards ecumenicalism on the matter. I am sure that the two parts of this equation feel equally under threat.
The antagonists are saying that if, in an area, the number of Church school places has been, in the past, say 10 per cent. of the total number of maintained school places, then, when the total demand for school places falls, as is happening in London and the other big cities, the number of Church places should still be no more than 10 per cent. Yet, if the free expression of parental choice is permitted, all the evidence is that far more parents prefer a Church school for their child than they have been able to achieve in recent years. Now, with falling rolls, there should be a greater opportunity to meet that parental choice.
A very articulate priest who resides in my constituency has addressed himself to thoughts on the role of Church schools. He says:
To the Roman Catholics themselves the schools allow growth within their faith, not in isolation but hopefully allowing children to face society with firm Christian principles.
He lists as a second advantage:
To the general education system the schools allow a viable variation for parental choice".
Thirdly, he sees the schools as "a strength" with
a strong philosophy of education to counteract some of the more extreme doctrines that seem to abound these days".
The Church schools are the enemies of intolerance and the disseminators of clear Christian values. I have sought this debate for two reasons—to reaffirm the role and value of Church schools and to put a shot across the bows of those who may be tempted to produce policies that threaten their existence within a pluralistic society.
I conclude with a further quotation from a Church of England man, the Rev. Gerard Hughes, of the Coventry diocesan education team, who said:
Education tends to socialise its pupils. We must, however, go beyond this and try to initiate children into what is valuable in society".
I am sure that reasonably-minded hon. Members will support that objective and I hope that my hon. Freind will lend his support to that category of schools which is most assiduous in its pursuit.

The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Dr. Rhodes Boyson): We owe a debt to my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South-West (Mr. Butcher) for introducing this debate today. I know that many others present, including my hon. Friends the Members for Rugby (Mr. Pawsey), for Winchester (Mr. Browne), for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway), for Dartford (Mr. Dunn) and myself are concerned about the preservation of voluntary schools in Britain. I draw attention to the empty Opposition Benches and to the


absence of any Labour, Liberal or SDP Member, when everyone knew that there was to be an Adjournment debate this evening about voluntary schools and their importance to the educational system.
I greatly respect my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South-West. I met him when he was on the education committee in Birmingham and when I spoke to the advisory committee of the Conservative Party in that area. Our friendship, which I very much treasure, began in those days before he joined us as a Member of Parliament.
Tonight he has drawn our attention to the valuable part played by the voluntary schools in the education service of Britain. I am only too pleased to assure him that the Government continue to support the voluntary schools, especially the Church schools, and that, as far as any Government can, they will protect those schools from those who would destroy them or, as seems to be the policy of the Labour Party, slowly to strangle them.
Such voluntary schools—which are largely Catholic, Anglican or Jewish, but which could be used by other multi-racial or ethnic groups, and which frequently are in some parts of Britain—give parents the opportunity to have their children taught in a school where religious and moral values reflect those of the Church and the family. In an age when moral values are under attack, that ensures that children are brought up with roots that can withstand the storms of adolescence. Never have religiously based schools been more necessary.
Voluntary schools are also part of the free society. They balance the increasing power of the Government and local education authorities, of which I have always been suspicious. Lord Acton's dictum was
Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely
and a free society will be preserved only by power centres that are not pawns of the State but which can balance the State's powers. Voluntary schools are one of the foundation stones of the free society. Poland is a current warning of the need for alternative power structures independent of the State.
My hon. Friend rightly drew attention to documents emanating from the Labour Party, which wishes to control admissions to these schools, taking away from the Church control of over its own schools and reducing the intake to those schools, even against parental wishes. I wish to bring my hon. Friends up to date—my hon. Friend spoke of the draft manifestos of last year—about what has happened more recently along those lines. Further documents published since the local elections of last year regrettably demonstrate that the fervour of the Socialists to control, to use one of their euphemisms, the Church schools remains unabated.
The Socialist Education Association produced a document only last December entitled "The Dual System of Voluntary and County Schools". The Socialist Education Association is affiliated to the Labour Party, and the president and driving force of that association is none other than Mrs. Caroline Benn, wife of the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn). Mrs. Benn

said that the document would be considered by the Labour Party national executive committee with a view to incorporating it into party policy.
The proposals in that document amount to the eventual abolition of Church schools. The local education authorities would control admissions to the voluntary schools. At present the head and the governors control admissions and, to take a simple example, they admit Catholics to Catholic schools. The Socialists would take away the right of control over admissions. If they do that, the special ethos of those schools will be completely destroyed.
Similarly, under this recommendation the local education authorities would control staff appointments to the voluntary schools, which again is a way of removing the special attributes of the schools. But the most immediate and effective control that the Socialist Education Association proposes is on the actual numbers allowed into those schools, to which my hon. Friend referred. Hon. Members will not be surprised to learn that while most areas of the country are suffering from falling school rolls, the numbers applying to the voluntary schools are holding up more than those to the county schools. In other words, left to themselves, many parents show a preference for the voluntary schools such that numbers in these schools decline only slowly compared to the greater decline in the county schools.
To this state of affairs the Socialist Education Association says:
The local authority must be given powers to see that schools share the falls and closures equitably, rather than leave developments to be determined by crude market forces.
Presumably what is meant by "crude market forces" is parental choice. The association seems to be saying that the parents—presumably ratepayers and taxpayers—should not be allowed to exercise choice for their own children.

Mr. Pawsey: Does my hon. Friend recognise that Catholics raise money for their own schools? Surely they are putting their choice where their money is.

Dr. Boyson: I welcome that intervention. Catholics do raise money for their schools. Even in the building of schools they raise 15 per cent. of the cost. There is a financial penalty clause which accompanies that choice.
The document continues:
Legislation will be required to give local authorities the right to determine school size after due consultation with all interested parties.
We know what is sometimes meant by consultation. This is what was in the Labour Government's 1979 Education Bill of the right hon. Member for Crosby (Mrs. Williams), who was the then Secretary of State for Education and Science. That Bill fell with the election.
The right hon. Lady makes much of her 1979 Bill, and she claims that we simply stole it and turned it into our 1980 Act. We certainly "stole" the non-controversial bits, such as calling managers and governors of schools simply governors. On admissions and the voluntary schools, however, we made very careful and intentional changes to


what she had proposed in order to restore the full rights of the voluntary schools and to make sure that these rights would be retained.
The right hon. Lady's Bill would have made it possible for local authorities, supported by the Secretary of State, to impose a reduction on the entry to a popular voluntary school, even where such reduction was clearly against the wishes of the parents, and clearly against the so-called "crude market forces". In Committee I led the then Conservative Opposition in opposing the Bill. That Opposition fought it tooth and nail. We kept the Bill in Committee until the previous Labour Goverment fell. In other words, the right hon. Lady attempted the kind of legislation that the Socialist Education Association is still asking for today. Indeed, the SEA is kind enough to give us credit for supporting the voluntary schools in our 1980 Act, which I took through Committee. It states:
The 1980 Education Act gave aided voluntary schools significant new independent powers in matters of admissions and certain appeals
The hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock), the chief Opposition spokesman on education, has gone to some lengths to try to distance himself from these views of the Socialist Education Association. He even found it necessary to write to the Catholic newspapers pointing out that the document was only a discussion document and was not necessarily Labour Party policy.

Mr. Pawsey: We will not be taken in by that.

Dr. Boyson: Quite so. I do not think that we are being taken in by that. However, the document states:
This is not the first time the Labour Party has committed itself to discuss problems arising over the dual system. In our party programme 1973, setting out policy for a future Labour Government, we pledged that a Labour Government would start informal talks with the voluntary sector on some of the problems being met.
We know what those informal talks would mean. We are entitled to observe that what may be extreme Bennite policies one year tend to become accepted Labour policy the next.
Furthermore, we are entitled to observe that the former leader of the ILEA, Sir Ashley Bramall, and a present ILEA committee chairman, Miss Margaret Morgan, as well as the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price), are listed as contributors to the Socialist Education Association document. I was also amazed to find that an ILEA inspector is listed as a contributor to that political document.
Let me quote from another Socialist source. There is a journal published by the Left-wing branch of the London Labour Party under the name TLK. That stands, believe it or not, for "Teaching London Kids". In one issue a Mr. Dave Pictor states:
The proportion of pupils in voluntary schools is rising fast…The 1980 Education Act by deliberately strengthening the position of the voluntary aided and special agreement schools is an attempt to permanently defend those voluntary schools.
We say "Amen" to that. He, too, credits us with defending Church schools. I consider that not an attack but an honour.
Mr. Pictor also says of the Catholic schools:
What is most unacceptable about the position is the way in which the Catholic authorities, by virtue of the aided status, are able to formulate their own plans for secondary organisation.
At least he concedes:
The way forward is not instant abolition of the voluntary schools".
I have to say, however, that the way that he emphasises instant abolition seems to imply that the way forward is the eventual strangulation of the voluntary schools. However, the Left-wing of the Labour Party kindly reminds the hon. Member for Bedwellty that the matter of the Church schools is a "political hot potato" and that
If handled in a clumsy way it could lose votes".
If that is all that the Labour Party offers, can voluntary schools look to the SDP for help? I sadly fear not. Not only did the right hon. Member for Crosby, when she was still in the Labour Party, put into her 1979 Bill proposals that would have seriously curtailed the voluntary schools, but let us look at what the SDP is saying now.
I quote from the Camden SDP:
the county and voluntary schools should share equally in falling pupil entry, and that all schools should be kept open with reduced intake.
That is what my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South-West quoted the Labour Party as saying. Here again the SDP is saying that the voluntary schools must take an equal share of falling rolls, ignoring the fact that there is still a tremendous demand for those schools and that parents do not want them to be cut back equally with the other schools. One outcome of that SDP policy would be the end of the Church schools, for many of them are only three forms of entry. To reduce their intake still further would be to make them very difficult to run.
Let me return to Labour's policy and quote another of the formidable Benn family. Councillor Hilary Benn, now I believe the prospective parliamentary Labour candidate for Ealing, North, and son of Caroline and the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East, in a letter to The Times of 12 February this year stated:
The case against any extension of voluntary aided denominational education is overwhelming.
Again, betraying that true Socialist view, he stated:
The most fundamental objection of all is that the principle of comprehensive education, whose purpose is to break down barriers of selection, class, race and social inequality, would be irrevocably damaged if our education system were to be divided on religious lines.
In other words Church schools can stay if they are not concerned with religion—one can have any colour of car as long as it is black.
No wonder the Church schools are alarmed. No wonder they look to the Conservative Party as the only party that clearly and without a shadow of doubt continues to support the retention and the continued independence of the voluntary sector of education.
This is not a political monopoly, however, that we should like to preserve. We should be only too delighted to have the Labour Party and the SDP joining us in clear and full defence both on religious and personal choice


grounds. I regret that this is not at present the case. We should welcome the presence of the SDP to hear what is being said in the debate.
My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Page) is a great supporter of voluntary schools. I welcome his presence.
The debate has been important. The preservation of religious schools is important on religious grounds and for the defence of freedom.

Mr. Greenway: I attended the weekly communion service of the Twyford Church of England high school in

Ealing last week. Children of all races were there, which proves that the schools are multiracial and rules out the Labour Party's racial objection.

Dr. Boyson: There were three times as many first choices for the school this year, after it had become a Church of England school, than three years ago, when it was non-denominational. Despite the Labour Party's total opposition, the success of the transfer of the school to become a Church of England school is demonstrated by the parental support. I trust that similar parental choice will be permitted throughout the country.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at sixteen minutes to Eleven o'clock.